Cluster 507767

Agency, 849 F.2d 765, 770 (2d Cir.1988) (“Mere opportunity to obtain a federal contract is not a property right under the due process clause.”)); cf. Sanitation & Recycling Ind., Inc. v. City of New York, 928 F.Supp. 407, 420-21 (S.D.N.Y.1996), aff'd, 107 F.3d 985 (2d Cir.1997) (right to continue business on same terms as in the past is not a protectable property interest under the Due Process Clause).

Agency, 849 F.2d 765, 770 (2d Cir.1988) ("Mere opportunity to obtain a federal contract is not a property right under the due process clause.”)).

In Asbestec Construction Services v. EPA, 849 F.2d 765, 767, 769 (2d Cir.1988), the court considered a due process challenge to a Clean Air Act “compliance order” that, like a UAO, found that the recipient had violated federal law, ordered specified compliance actions, and threatened “an EPA court action for relief’ if the recipient failed to comply.

The Supreme Court “teaches that this sort of an allegation of defamation is actionable only when made in the context of a denial of or discharge from a government contract.” Asbestec Const. Servs., Inc., v. U.S. E.P.A., 849 F.2d 765, 769-70 (2d Cir.1988) (citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 706 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-74 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (liberty interest implicated if there is a discharge an…

Agency, 849 F.2d 765, 770 (2d Cir.1988), the government issued a compliance order to the plaintiff that required it to take a number of actions, but it had not yet brought an enforcement action.

Servs., Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 849 F.2d 765, 770 (2nd Cir.1988).

See Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. EPA, 554 F.2d 885, 890-91 (8th Cir.1977); Asbestec Const. Servs., Inc. v. EPA, 849 F.2d 765, 769 (2d Cir.1988).

Servs., Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 849 F.2d 765, 769 (2d Cir.1988) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 849 F.2d 765, 770 (2d Cir.1988).

Services, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 849 F.2d 765, 769 (2d Cir.1988).

Servs., Inc. v. United States EPA, 849 F.2d 765, 768 (2d Cir.1988), this Court interprets the statute to reach the class of claims that “necessarily implicate” an EPA final action.

Where violation of an order would not expose the party to penalties or obligations not already imposed by the statute, the impact of the order may not be sufficiently practical or immediate to make the action “final.” See Solar Turbines, Inc., 879 F.2d at 1081 (no penalties flowed from violation of stop-work order under 42 U.S.C. § 7477 , so order was not final action); Asbestec Construction Services, Inc., 849 F.2d at 767-68 (order under 42 U.S.C. § 7413 (a)(3) requiring “f…

Serv., Inc. v. E.P.A., 849 F.2d 765, 770 (2d Cir.1988).

Serv., Inc. v. EPA, 849 F.2d 765, 769 (2d Cir.1988) (EPA compliance order which might have adversely affected plaintiff’s future business prospects did not implicate a liberty interest).

Services, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 849 F.2d 765, 768 (2nd Cir.1988).