1. Highlight the pertinent facts; 2. Identify the issue of law posed by the case problem. This will be in the form of a question based on a legal concept from the chapter. 3. What should be the decision in the case? (i.e. the answer to the issue) 4. The reasoning for such decision. 1. Ryan Jackson filed a complaint against the St. Louis Car Exchange (SLCE), an automobile dealership alleging that the SLCE fraudulently furnished him an inaccurate odometer reading when it sold him a 1968 Dodge Dart, in violation of the Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ("the Odometer Act" or "the Act"). The Odometer Act requires all persons transferring a motor vehicle to give an accurate, written odometer reading to the purchaser or recipient of the transferred vehicle. Under the Act, those who disclose an inaccurate odometer reading with the intent to defraud are subject to a private cause of action by the purchaser and may be held liable for treble damages or $1,500, whichever is greater. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, relying upon a regulation promulgated by the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA), which purports to exempt vehicle that are at least ten years old (such as the one Jackson purchased from the SLCE) from the Act's odometer disclosure requirements. 2. Willie Earl Carr sought disability benefits from the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), but an administrative law judge ("ALJ") denied his claim and the agency's Appeals Council declined to review the decision. Carr appealed to a federal district court. While his case in the district court was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, that Securities and Exchange Commission ALJs are "inferior officers" under the Appointments Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and as inferior officers, they must be appointed by the President, a court, or the head of the agency. In response to Lucia, the SSA Commissioner appointed the SSA's ALJs. After these appointment actions, Carr raised a claim for the first time that the ALJs who had rejected their claims had not been properly appointed under the Appointments Clause. The SSA Commissioner argued that Carr waived the Appointments Clause challenge by failing to raise it earlier. 3. Congress enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) for the purpose of reducing the number of traffic accidents that result in death or personal injury. The Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle safety standards in order to improve the design and safety features of cars. The Secretary has delegated authority to promulgate safety standards to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the informal rulemaking procedure of the APA. The Act also authorizes judicial review under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of all orders establishing, amending, or revoking a federal motor vehicle safety standard issued by the NHTSA. Pursuant to the Act, the NHTSA issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, which required all cars made after September 1982 to be equipped with passive restraints (either automatic seat belts or airbags). The cost of implementing the standard was estimated to be around $1 billion. However, early in 1981, due to changes in economic circumstances and particularly due to complaints from the automotive industry, the NHTSA rescinded Standard 208. The NHTSA had originally assumed that car manufacturers would install airbags in 60 percent of new cars and passive seat belts in 40 percent. However, by 1981 it appeared that manufacturers were planning to install seat belts in 99 percent of all new cars. Moreover, the majority of passive seatbelts could be easily and permanently detached by consumers. Therefore, the NHTSA felt that standard 208 would not result in any significant safety benefits. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) and the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII) filed petitions in federal court for review of the NHTSA's rescission of standard 208