Assume that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), using proper procedures, adopts a rule describing its future investigations. This new rule covers all future circumstances in which FDA wants to regulate food additives. Under the new rule, FDA is not to regulate food additives without giving food companies an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Sometime after, FDA decides it wants to regulate methylisocyanate, a food additive that some research suggests may cause death in laboratory animals. FDA undertakes an informal rulemaking procedure, without cross-examination, and regulates methylisocyanate. Producers protest, saying that the FDA promised them the opportunity for cross-examination. FDA responds that the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such cross-examination and that it is free withdraw the promise made in its new rule. Required:
If the producers challenge FDA in court, would a court rule in their favor?