Some constitutional law is also administrative law. Much in the same way that constitutional law can also be part of the law of contracts or part of the law of torts. Administrative law is the law relating to government due process.
The overarching 'bucket' of theory we ascribe to a discussion is purely out of convenience, but the core principles animating the discussion in this case are at the heart of administrative law, hence the use of the term.
We could say this ruling was "Social Media Law" and be correct (and this term and grouping would be interesting in certain contexts, too!).
In regards to the standard, arbitrary and capricious is a term of art regarding decision-making, referring to some of the worst possible government behavior. Without getting into the details of how admin law works, let's just say arbitrary and capricious behaviour - the hallmark of tyrants - is the big bad that administrative law aims to battle against. The term also refers to a standard of review, but that's more an indication of deference - that the courts won't fight against decisions they don't feel competent to deal with unless they're that bad.
To answer the second portion of your question, the limitation on the scope of admin law is government, not the legislature and it's devolved structures. If I had to bet, I'd say the most common use of administrative law falls purely within the judiciary, as all appeals are all functionally administrative reviews of a prior decision.
I'm looking at syllabi for "Administrative Law" right now, and for instance at the University of Michigan, as top-level "sections", the course breaks down to:
1. what a government agency is
2. administrative adjudication (due process is a sub-bullet under here)
3. rulemaking
4. when and how rulemaking and adjudication is exposed to Article III judicial review
5. the scope of judicial review for administrative actions
6. how agencies relate to the executive
Under that rubric, this doesn't look like an "administrative law" dispute except that it involves "due process", but then, if that makes something "administrative law", wouldn't lots of cases that aren't conventionally understood as admin law cases be admin law cases?
On the other hand, there are no ALJs involved here, no county agency rule was drafted determining how Facebook was to be moderated, no question came up as to whether the County Supervisor's moderation was an exercise of powers granted to executive agencies explicitly by the Louisiana Constitution (do they have one? or is it all still French law there?), &c &c.
I'm nerding out here, if it isn't clear; I don't think this debate is vital the the outcome of thread. :)
Administrative law, the 101 course, is not the same as Administrative law, the body of legal knowledge and principles, but they're certainly related.
The case in question has a very specific Administrative law segment. It also has principles which derive out of Administrative law which animate the constitutional analysis. These two are distinct and the difference isn't immediately clear.
The specific Administrative law segment asks: what policy exists regarding social media use at the relevant level of government and should that body of government which the defendant represents be held to account on the basis that he decided on the policy when he went forward with the banning? The court decided he was not making policy because he was upset and reversed the ban within a day - and perhaps as importantly - refused to revisit the issue because the magnitude of the lower court error on this point was not sufficient to hit the standard of review.
The constitutional law portion of the decision is animated by Administrative law principles. Here's a brief sampling:
Page 17-21 of the decision boil down to "was he acting as the government?" which is one of the big questions you see illustrated in the syllabus contents you copied.
The discussion on page 29 regarding the public/private brightline rule advanced by the defendant is emblematic of the 'is the decision arbitrary?' question. All of the examples used are more about the quality of decisions than the type of forum. So, despite the discussion being framed in constitutional fora terms, it is functionally an administrative law analysis of capricious decisions.
The discussion on Page 33 is even more on point. Viewpoint discrimination is titled example of behaviour that is, by definition, arbitrary and capricious.
That said, the specific protection against arbitrary and capricious decisions is found under the Equal Protections Clause, not the Free Speech clause. Different tests operate in both areas, but once you get past the public/private forum discussion, the case then turns to a discussion about the quality of the decision, and that's where we see all these Administrative law ideas percolate up.
Edit: Making this less stream-of-thoughty.
Edit: There's actually an unconsidered Admin law claim that wasn't addressed because it wasn't brought up at first instance discussed briefly on pg. 35. Looks like someone cited the wrong test at first instance and isn't being allowed to fix it now.
You seem to misunderstand the applicable law. A procedural due process claim under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not only different from a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, but they cannot apply to the same circumstances: the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, as opposed to the Fifth Amendment due process clause, applies to the States alone; the Administrative Procedure Act applies to federal agencies.
The APA is not raised at all in any of my points and this is a state level matter so the 14th governs. I've linked the brief where you can see that this is a municipal affair in Virginia.
But regardless of the jurisdiction of the clause, the point of highlighting that targeted protection against capricious behavior lies elsewhere is to note that the de jure rules in one are are the very principles animating another. We could have the same discussion talking about how elements of German public law are reflected in this case, if we wanted. I'm sure you've seen cases where the judges have asked in oral "But aren't these two tests the same thing?" or "But aren't these two tests the same thing when condition x is satisfied?". Here, x is the forum requirement.
Maybe I've missed the point of your post here? Please let me know if I have.
This is, quite simply, not an administrative law case. Your position that it is an administrative law case and is governed by the arbitrary and capricious standard is incorrect.
Additionally, holding that position while also saying that the APA isn't implicated borders on being self-contradictory. Where exactly do you think the "arbitrary and capricious" standard comes from, if not from the codification of Chevron?
We don't see eye to eye on what the term 'administrative law' refers to in this case. I've tried to be as clear as possible about the difference between "Admin law - the field of law" and "Admin law - the set of principles", but perhaps I've failed.
The esteemed RA Macdonald wrote a fantastic article on the precise difference you and I have in our approaches to understanding the law. Here's the paywalled version, but the preview should provide a nice snippet: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42897805?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co...
In short, you have a narrow view of admin law. I have an expansive view. Both have their advantages, but the confusion between the two, given that they share a title, is unfortunate.
To be clear, I explicitly stated the Arbitrary and Capricious standard does NOT apply as a test here, but rather the animating concept behind the standard DOES. I've stated as much no less than three times. To ignore that distinguishing remark to indicate that I'm misusing a test in another field of law when I'm explicitly indicating that there's an analogy between two different fields of law is an unfortunate indicator that my between-meeting scrawl was not well authored.
Edit: upon re-reading your post, you seem to believe that Arbitary and Capricious is a term of art that only exists in US administrative law. That's reading the history of that area of law very narrowly (Especially given that the US judiciary agrees see: State Farm and following cases). The APA language literally includes by name the entire french tradition of analysing abus de droit. I won't get into that segment, because I can nerd out for days on that point :).
The case under discussion is a U.S. case. In that context, "administrative law" has one specific meaning. When discussing administrative law, "arbitrary and capricious" has one specific meaning. Your use of these terms is not correct. This is not an administrative law case, and you were wrong to mislead tptacek.
I'd be glad if you'd be a bit more charitable in your reading of my points. You are speaking with someone who has litigated and published substantial material in the specific area you're attempting to lecture me in. My point isn't very complicated, but it doesn't seem like you're trying to understand it. You're trying to define it away, and it doesn't make sense to do so if you actually know the fields of law intimately.
The terms you're discussing do not originate in the US and the principles which have been (repeatedly) pointed at as the core subject of discussion do not first arise there either. Nor are they exclusive used there, nor are the problems they remedy exclusively addressed or present there. This is comparative law as applied between fields of similar construction. I'm shocked that the point is so difficult to digest; this is one of the key techniques used in the analysis of legal systems.
Unfortunately, this was not supposed to be a massive string of posts about the portability of principle. If it was, I'd have started with the actual roots of the principles we're discussing, which (and this is a very simplistic summary) attained quasi-modern forms in the 1600s, in the context of war over rulemaking authority in England, and was developed further into the fully modern form in civilian systems. So no, there's nothing misleading - this is actually the more fulsome understanding. This is a common issue with barristers - the law, to them, only seems to extend to what they believe they can use in a factum.
I just think the full story is key in sorting through the jargon to show what 1A is actually trying to do, but it seems we've spent all our time nitpicking jargon instead of examining the intent and purpose of the rules. So clearly I wasn't too effective! Unfortunately, this is my last post on the subject, since we're well off productive ground, but if we cross paths again, I hope we can have a more productive discussion. I love speaking with colleagues here.
I'll end with a nice little note by former CJC Beverley McLachlin on the aims of admin law as it developed in Canada - maybe the parallels will be illustrative:
"The goal was to ensure that administrative tribunals operated within the principles that define the rule of law. Not arbitrarily. Not capriciously. Not unreasonably. Fairly and in accordance with the law."
Yes. That's what they did. They couldn't address the due process claim because it was poorly argued at first instance and the 'proper' formulation was not addressed as it was not raised earlier. Then they went off and used all the same administrative law principles under different names in the 1A analysis after concluding that a facebook page could be a public forum.
Without getting into the details of how admin law works, let's just say arbitrary and capricious behaviour - the hallmark of tyrants - is the big bad that administrative law aims to battle against.
Some constitutional law is also administrative law. Much in the same way that constitutional law can also be part of the law of contracts or part of the law of torts. Administrative law is the law relating to government due process.
The overarching 'bucket' of theory we ascribe to a discussion is purely out of convenience, but the core principles animating the discussion in this case are at the heart of administrative law, hence the use of the term.
We could say this ruling was "Social Media Law" and be correct (and this term and grouping would be interesting in certain contexts, too!).
In regards to the standard, arbitrary and capricious is a term of art regarding decision-making, referring to some of the worst possible government behavior. Without getting into the details of how admin law works, let's just say arbitrary and capricious behaviour - the hallmark of tyrants - is the big bad that administrative law aims to battle against. The term also refers to a standard of review, but that's more an indication of deference - that the courts won't fight against decisions they don't feel competent to deal with unless they're that bad.
To answer the second portion of your question, the limitation on the scope of admin law is government, not the legislature and it's devolved structures. If I had to bet, I'd say the most common use of administrative law falls purely within the judiciary, as all appeals are all functionally administrative reviews of a prior decision.