Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Administrative law (4)
- Chevron (3)
- Deference (3)
- Administrative Law (2)
- Due process (2)
-
- Judicial review (2)
- Skidmore (2)
- Access to counsel (1)
- Adjudication (1)
- Administrative Procedure Act (1)
- Administrative judges (1)
- Administrative law judges (1)
- Deportation (1)
- Drones (1)
- Executive branch (1)
- Executive orders (1)
- FAA (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Government officials (1)
- Hearing officer (1)
- Impartiality (1)
- Judicial Review (1)
- Partiality (1)
- President (1)
- Qui Tam (1)
- Regulations (1)
- Standing (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Surveillance (1)
- UA (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Politics Of Selecting Chevron Deference, Kent H. Barnett, Christina L. Boyd, Christopher J. Walker
The Politics Of Selecting Chevron Deference, Kent H. Barnett, Christina L. Boyd, Christopher J. Walker
Scholarly Works
In this article, we examine an important threshold question in judicial behavior and administrative law: When do federal circuit courts decide to use the Chevron deference framework and when do they select a framework that is less deferential to the administrative agency's statutory interpretation? The question is important because the purpose of Chevron deference is to give agencies-not judges-policy-making space within statutory interpretation. We expect, nonetheless, that whether to invoke the Chevron framework is largely driven by political dynamics, with judges adopting a less deferential standard when their political preferences do not align with the agency's decision. To provide insight, …
Administrative Law's Political Dynamics, Kent H. Barnett, Christina L. Boyd, Christopher J. Walker
Administrative Law's Political Dynamics, Kent H. Barnett, Christina L. Boyd, Christopher J. Walker
Scholarly Works
Over thirty years ago, the Supreme Court in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. commanded courts to uphold federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes as long as those interpretations are reasonable. This Chevron deference doctrine was based in part on the Court’s desire to temper administrative law’s political dynamics by vesting federal agencies, not courts, with primary authority to make policy judgments about ambiguous laws Congress charged the agencies to administer. Despite this express objective, scholars such as Frank Cross, Emerson Tiller, and Cass Sunstein have empirically documented how politics influence circuit court review of agency statutory …
Promoting Executive Accountability Through Qui Tam Legislation, Randy Beck
Promoting Executive Accountability Through Qui Tam Legislation, Randy Beck
Scholarly Works
For hundreds of years prior to ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Anglo-American legislatures used qui tam legislation to enforce legal constraints on government officials. A qui tam statute allows a private informer to collect a statutory fine for illegal conduct, even if the informer lacks the particularized injury normally required for Article III standing. This essay explores whether qui tam regulation should be revived as a means of ensuring executive branch legal accountability."
Chevron Step Two's Domain, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Chevron Step Two's Domain, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Scholarly Works
An increasing number of judges, policymakers, and scholars have advocated eliminating or narrowing Chevron deference—a two-step inquiry under which courts defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes the agencies administer. Much of the debate centers on either Chevron’s domain (i.e., when Chevron should apply at all) or how courts ascertain statutory ambiguity at Chevron’s first step. Largely lost in this debate on constraining agency discretion is the role of Chevron’s second step: whether the agency’s resolution of a statutory ambiguity is reasonable. Drawing on the most comprehensive study of Chevron in the circuit courts, this Essay explores how …
Non-Alj Adjudicators In Federal Agencies: Status, Selection, Oversight, And Removal, Kent H. Barnett, Russell Wheeler
Non-Alj Adjudicators In Federal Agencies: Status, Selection, Oversight, And Removal, Kent H. Barnett, Russell Wheeler
Scholarly Works
This article republishes—in substantively similar form—our 2018 report to the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) concerning federal agencies’ adjudicators who are not administrative law judges (ALJs). (We refer to these adjudicators as “non-ALJ Adjudicators” or “non-ALJs.”) As our data indicate, non-ALJs significantly outnumber ALJs. Yet non-ALJs are often overlooked and difficult to discuss as a class because of their disparate titles and characteristics. To obtain more information on non-ALJs, we surveyed agencies on non-ALJs’ hearings and, among other things, the characteristics concerning non-ALJs’ salaries, selection, oversight, and removal. We first present our reported data on these matters, which …
Game Of Drones: Rolling The Dice With Unmanned Aerial Vehicles And Privacy, Rebecca L. Scharf
Game Of Drones: Rolling The Dice With Unmanned Aerial Vehicles And Privacy, Rebecca L. Scharf
Scholarly Works
This Article offers a practical three-part test for courts and law enforcement to utilize when faced with drone and privacy issues. Specifically addressing the question: how should courts analyze the Fourth Amendment’s protection against ‘unreasonable searches’ in the context of drones?
The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence produced an intricate framework to address issues arising out of the intersection of technology and privacy interests. In prominent decisions, including United States v. Katz, California v. Ciraolo, Kyllo v. United States, and most notably, United States v. Jones, the Court focused on whether the use of a single …
Toward Universal Deportation Defense: An Optimistic View, Michael Kagan
Toward Universal Deportation Defense: An Optimistic View, Michael Kagan
Scholarly Works
One of the most positive responses to heightened federal enforcement of immigration laws has been increasing local and philanthropic interest in supporting immigrant legal defense. These measures are tentative and may be fleeting, and for the time being are not a substitute for federal support for an immigration public defender system. Nevertheless, it is now possible to envision many more immigrants in deportation having access to counsel, maybe even a situation in which the majority do. In this paper, Professor Michael Kagan makes no real predictions. Instead, he offers a deliberately-perhaps even blindly optimistic assessment of how concrete steps that …
Loud And Soft Anti-Chevron Decisions, Michael Kagan
Loud And Soft Anti-Chevron Decisions, Michael Kagan
Scholarly Works
This Article proposes a methodology for interpreting the Supreme Court's long-standing inconsistency in the application of the Chevron doctrine. Developing such an approach is important because this central, canonical doctrine in administrative law is entering a period of uncertainty after long seeming to enjoy consensus support on the Court. In retrospect, it makes sense to view the many cases in which the Court failed to apply Chevron consistently as signals of underlying doctrinal doubt. However, to interpret these soft anti-Chevron decisions requires a careful approach, because sometimes Justices are simply being unpredictable and idiosyncratic. However, where clear patterns can be …