Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Rights-Based Sanctions Procedures, Desiree Leclercq
Rights-Based Sanctions Procedures, Desiree Leclercq
Scholarly Works
Federal agencies are increasingly interpreting international labor rights and imposing a wide array of economic and financial penalties, or “rights-based sanctions,” under various laws and regulations. Congress recently vested the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) with authority to impose targeted rights-based sanctions on foreign factories. USTR has begun administering its new authority with vigor. Policymakers and rights advocates hope that USTR’s enforcement activities will strengthen the protection of workers abroad.
Hidden from view, and thus largely overlooked, are the exclusory procedures that agencies follow when they administer rights-based sanctions. The Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Asset Control …
Against Administrative Judges, Kent H. Barnett
Against Administrative Judges, Kent H. Barnett
Scholarly Works
The single largest cadre of federal adjudicators goes largely ignored by scholars, policymakers, courts, and even litigating parties. These Administrative Judges or “AJs,” often confused with well-known federal Administrative Law Judges or “ALJs,” operate by the thousands in numerous federal agencies. Yet unlike ALJs, the significantly more numerous AJs preside over less formal hearings and have no significant statutory protections to preserve their impartiality. The national press has recently called attention to the alleged unfairness of certain ALJ proceedings, and regulated parties have successfully enjoined agencies’ use of ALJs. While fixes are necessary for ALJ adjudication, any solution that ignores …
Improving Agencies’ Preemption Expertise With Chevmore Codification, Kent H. Barnett
Improving Agencies’ Preemption Expertise With Chevmore Codification, Kent H. Barnett
Scholarly Works
After nearly thirty years, the judicially crafted Chevron and Skidmore judicial-review doctrines have found new life as exotic, yet familiar, legislative tools. When Chevron deference applies, courts employ two steps: they consider whether the statutory provision at issue is ambiguous, and, if so, they defer to an administering agency’s reasonable interpretation. Skidmore deference, in contrast, is a less deferential regime in which courts assume interpretative primacy over statutory ambiguities but defer to agency action based on four factors — the agency’s thoroughness, reasoning, consistency, and overall persuasiveness. In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress directed courts …