S.Ct. 1575, 1580-81, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947); Chisholm v. FCC, 538 F.2d 349, 365 (D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. FCC, 429 U.S. 890, 97 S.Ct. 247, 50 L.Ed.2d 173 (1976). 20 . See Amer. Cyanamid Co. v. Food and Drug Admin., 606 F.2d 1307, 1320 (D.C.Cir.1979) (stating "FDA may, on a case-by-case basis, define and narrow the statutory requirement of adequate tests by announcing and applying particular principles of scientific methodology.") 21 . SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1580, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947). 22 . Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at 6. 23 . Plaintiffs’ SJ at 31. 24 . See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) (<HOLDING>) 25 . See Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v.
holding that a public employee who may only be terminated for cause has a property interest in his position that is protected by the 14th amendment holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that licenses issued under minnesota law do not create property interests in renewal that are protected by due process clause holding driving licenses to be property protected by the 14th amendment holding that contract of employment providing that professor could be terminated only for cause constituted property right protected by fourteenth amendment