Kids Toys Appeal to the Decision by the CPSC

  ADMIN Name Institution of affiliation Date ADMIN

1. Kids Toys can appeal the decision by the CPSC. This is provided for under section § 581 of the Judicial Review of the Administrative Procedure act (United States Congress, 1946). Federal administrative agencies are within the purview of review by federal courts. The statute of limitations for judicial review of final agency decisions is 6 years. The appeal must be pursuant to the provisions of sections 9 through 13 of title 9 of the Act.

Kids Toys appeal must be within the scope of judicial review. Thus, its application must require the court to make a determination on; “questions of law, its interpretation of the constitution and statutory provisions and whether these provisions could be applied by the agency and if they were applied correctly. The Federal court after reviewing the evidence provided must then make a determination of the matter before it. The court can then render a number of decisions; agree with the agency’s decision and compel the federal agency to act in the manner it had indicated or disagree with the federal agency and set aside the final agency decision. For the court to set aside the agency decision it must find that the agency actions were; Not in accordance with the law, constituted an egregious abuse of power and its discretion and were capricious and arbitrary; that the agency exceeded its lawful mandate in issuing the decision and in its actions; lack of substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision as required under section 556 and 557 of Title 5 (Government Organization and Employees) of the law; there was gross neglect of the facts such that the court deems it necessary to review the facts de novo; the decision must also be in direct contravention of a constitutionally guaranteed right, immunity or privilege.             The Federal Court will have 3 standards on which to base the decision. Namely; a) substantial evidence; (b) arbitrary and capricious; and (c) statutory interpretation. Kids Toys must therefore prove to the court that the CPSC did have substantial evidence to warrant its decision. Kids Toys can also allude that the CPSC incorrectly interpreted evidence on which it based its decision. For example the parents’ complains or statements from negligent workers. Under the “arbitrary and capricious’ standard, Kids Toys must prove that the CPSC made an error in judgment. It failed to consider all relevant factors and relied on wrong facts in prejudiced manner rendering its decision arbitrary and capricious. The court must ultimately determine if CPSC correctly interpreted its powers under the law correctly. Kids Toys can argue that CPSC by acting on its summary disposition decision prior to Kids Toys exhausting its legal facilities constituted an illegality. CPSC wrongly usurped the statutory provisions and hence erred in its action (Advice Legal , 2015).

1. In law, the courts generally disapprove of raising new issues in appeals that were not brought up in evidentiary hearings. The judge would be likely to assume that Kids Toys failed to raise these issues on purpose with a strategic purpose. The court would thus be prejudiced against the dilatory party in this instance being Kids Toys (Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2016). There are a number of instances where the court will allow new issues to be raise. This is however an exception as courts do not unnecessarily give up the role of arbiter and insert themselves into the adversarial nature of the court proceedings Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365 & n.7 (9th Cir.1986). Kids Toys must prove that it did not raise the issue during agency proceedings due to; the CPSC did not have subject matter jurisdiction, gross incompetence of the its attorneys (though this is unlikely to be accepted as the company is bound by the actions of its lawyers), mootness of the issue at the time of the agency proceedings, the action of the agency that led to the preemption of Kids Toys raising the issue, Illegality and unconstitutionality of the agency action can be raised. Kids Toys has a higher likelihood of the issue being accepted if the court raises it sua ponte.

Kids Toys can thus raise the issues as the...