{"id":7603,"date":"2015-11-18T16:15:13","date_gmt":"2015-11-18T22:15:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=7603"},"modified":"2015-11-18T22:28:46","modified_gmt":"2015-11-19T04:28:46","slug":"thought-for-the-day-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=7603","title":{"rendered":"Thought for the Day"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Circuit is fond of saying: &#8220;We review judgments &#8212; not opinions.&#8221; \u00a0I was recently reviewing the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Sang-Su Lee<\/span> opinion and the court&#8217;s statement would seem to be less applicable to agency decisions in view of what Judges Dyk, Newman, and Clevenger articulated for the court in that case:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<h2><em>Alternative Grounds<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>At oral argument the PTO Solicitor proposed alternative grounds on which this court might affirm the Board&#8217;s decision. However, as stated in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=13877070253057187976&amp;q=sung+su+lee+federal+circuit&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4006\"><em>Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States,<\/em> 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962),<\/a> &#8220;courts may not accept appellate counsel&#8217;s\u00a0<em>post hoc<\/em> rationalization for agency action.&#8221; Consideration by the appellate tribunal of new agency justifications deprives the aggrieved party of a fair opportunity to support its position; thus review of an administrative decision must be made on the grounds relied on by the agency. &#8220;If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers\u00a0<a class=\"gsl_pagenum\" href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16513581896339453698&amp;q=sung+su+lee+federal+circuit&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4006#p1346\">1346<\/a><a id=\"p1346\" class=\"gsl_pagenum2\" href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16513581896339453698&amp;q=sung+su+lee+federal+circuit&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4006#p1346\">*1346<\/a> to be a more adequate or proper basis.&#8221;\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=2539582695600411733&amp;q=sung+su+lee+federal+circuit&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4006\"><em>Securities &amp; Exchange Comm&#8217;n v. Chenery Corp.,<\/em> 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947)<\/a>. As reiterated in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=1169904785046052104&amp;q=sung+su+lee+federal+circuit&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4006\"><em><strong>Federal<\/strong>Election Comm&#8217;n v. Akins,<\/em> 524 U.S. 11, 25, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998),<\/a>&#8220;If a reviewing court agrees that the agency misinterpreted the law, it will set aside the agency&#8217;s action and remand the case \u2014 even though the agency (like a new jury after a mistrial) might later, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, reach the same result for a different reason.&#8221; Thus we decline to consider alternative grounds that might support the Board&#8217;s decision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Sang-Su Lee<\/span>, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2002). (<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?q=sung+su+lee+federal+circuit&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4006&amp;case=16513581896339453698&amp;scilh=0\">Link<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Circuit is fond of saying: &#8220;We review judgments &#8212; not opinions.&#8221; \u00a0I was recently reviewing the In re Sang-Su Lee opinion and the court&#8217;s statement would seem to be less applicable to agency decisions in view of what Judges Dyk, Newman, and Clevenger articulated for the court in that case: Alternative Grounds At [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7603"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7603"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7610,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7603\/revisions\/7610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}