Law Commons^™

Jazz Improvisation And The Law: Constrained Choice, Sequence, And Strategic Movement Within Rules, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article argues that a richer understanding of the nature of law is possible through comparative, analogical examination of legal work and the art of jazz improvisation. This exploration illuminates a middle ground between rule of law aspirations emphasizing stability and determinate meanings and contrasting claims that the untenable alternative is pervasive discretionary or politicized law. In both the law and jazz improvisation settings, the work involves constraining rules, others’ unpredictable actions, and strategic choosing with attention to where a collective creation is going. One expects change and creativity in improvisation, but the many analogous characteristics of law illuminate why …

Brief Of Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Pamela Foohey

Amicus Briefs

Amici curiae are professors at law schools throughout the United States. Amici’s expertise encompasses student-financial-assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, consumer finance, administrative and constitutional law, modes of statutory interpretation, and the development of the major questions doctrine. Amici have a strong interest in assisting this Court in resolving questions of law that go to the core of their professional expertise and scholarship, namely, the scope of the Department of Education’s authority to provide relief to borrowers and the development of this Court’s statutory interpretation methodology, particularly in the context of its precedent …

Did The Supreme Court In Transunion V. Ramirez Transform The Article Iii Standing Injury In Fact Test?: The Circuit Split Over Ada Tester Standing And Broader Theoretical Considerations, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Some commentators have criticized the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and especially the Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez for limiting Congress’ authority to confer standing by statute. For example, in his article, Injury in Fact Transformed, Professor Cass Sunstein argues that TransUnion is a “radical ruling” that uses the injury in fact standing requirement to limit the authority of Congress to enact only statutes that address harms that have a close relationship to traditional or common law harms. By contrast, Professor Ernst Young argues that the Supreme Court’s injury in fact doctrine is …

Cleansing Animus: The Path Through Arlington Heights, William Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Environmental Evidence, Seema Kakade

Faculty Scholarship

The voices of impacted people are some of the most important when trying to make improvements to social justice in a variety of contexts, including, criminal policing, housing, and health care. After all, the people with on the ground experience know what is likely to truly effectuate change in their community, and what is not. Yet, such lived experience is also often significantly lacking and undermined in law and policy. People with lived experience tend to be seen as both community experts with valuable knowledge, as well as non-experts with little valuable knowledge. This Article explores the lived experience with …

Aclp - Updated Overview Of Iija Digital Equity Grant Programs - March 2023, New York Law School

Reports and Resources

No abstract provided.

Sanitation: Reducing The Administrative State’S Control Over Public Health, Lauren R. Roth

Scholarly Works

On April 18, 2022, in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Biden, United States District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle vacated the mask mandate issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following a framework laid out in other decisions restricting CDC actions in response to COVID-19, the court found that the agency lacked statutory authority to protect the public from the virus by requiring mask wearing during travel and at transit hubs because Congress did not intend such a broad grant of power. Countering decades of public health jurisprudence, the federal district court failed to defer to experts and …

Food And Drug Regulation: Statutory And Regulatory Supplement (2023), Adam I. Muchmore

Journal Articles

This Statutory and Regulatory Supplement is intended for use with its companion casebook, Food and Drug Regulation: A Statutory Approach (2021). This is not a traditional statutory supplement. Instead, it contains selected, aggressively edited provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), related statutes, and the Code of Federal Regulations. The Supplement includes all provisions assigned as reading in the casebook, as well as a few additional provisions that some professors may wish to cover. The excerpts are designed to be teachable rather than

Interagency Litigation Outside Article Iii, Adam Crews

Connecticut Law Review

For over seventy years, the Supreme Court has said that a justiciable controversy can exist when one agency in the federal executive branch sues another. Although this raises intuitive concerns under both Article II (relating to presidential control) and Article III (relating to standing), scholars and judges have paid scant attention to the constitutional foundation for interagency litigation. Of those who have explored the topic, defenders and opponents alike agree on one thing: the foundation—or lack of one—depends on Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.

That is mistaken. A better approach to understand interagency litigation is to step outside Article III and …

Regulatory Innovation And Permission To Fail: The Case Of Suptech, Hilary J. Allen

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA has cast a pall over the discretion of administrative agencies at a very inopportune time. The private sector is currently adopting new technologies at a rapid pace, and as regulated industries become more technologically complex, administrative agencies must innovate technological tools of their own in order to keep up. Agencies will increasingly struggle to do their jobs without that innovation, but the private sector is afforded something that is both critical to the innovation process, and often denied to administrative agencies: “permission to fail.” Without some grace for the inevitable …

The Intersection Of The Bankruptcy Courts And Ferc, Amanda Gazzo

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In the past, the bankruptcy courts and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) have been involved in a power struggle with one another. Congress has granted bankruptcy courts exclusive authority to allow debtors to reject executory contracts in chapter 11 reorganization cases. Additionally, Congress has granted FERC authority to govern over utility entities’ filed-rates, which are sometimes contained in executory contracts. It is in this intersection, regarding executory contracts containing filed-rates, where the power struggle between the two exists.

An executory contract is a contract where both parties still have material obligations to perform under the contract. Filed-rates may …

Standing Without Injury, Jonathan Adler

Faculty Publications

It is well-established that injury in fact is an essential element of Article III standing, but should it be? Academics have long criticized the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence. These criticisms are now being echoed by federal judges. Judge Kevin Newsom, for one, has suggested existing standing jurisprudence has become ungrounded from constitutional text, incoherent, and administrable. He suggests abandoning injury in fact altogether, and recognizing broad congressional power to authorize causes of action to sue in federal court, subject only to those limits imposed by the executive branch’s obligation to “Take Care” that the laws are faithfully executed. In short, …

Responding To The New Major Questions Doctrine, Christopher J. Walker

Articles

The new major questions doctrine has been a focal point in administrative law scholarship and litigation over the past year. One overarching theme is that the doctrine is a deregulatory judicial power grab from both the executive and legislative branches. It limits the president’s ability to pursue a major policy agenda through regulation. And in the current era of political polarization, Congress is unlikely to have the capacity to pass legislation to provide the judicially required clear authorization for agencies to regulate major questions. Especially considering the various “vetogates” imposed by Senate and House rules, it is fair to conclude …

Reviewing Mixed Questions Of Fact And Law In Administrative Adjudications: Why Courts Should Move To “Substantially Established Facts”, Gwendolyn Savitz

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

Courts are inconsistent in how they review mixed questions of fact and law in administrative adjudications. Many courts simply and unquestioningly review the entire mixed issue using only substantial evidence review. This grants extreme and unquestioning deference to any legal interpretation used by the agency, far more than would be available to it under the increasingly besieged Chevron doctrine, despite the fact that the adjudications being reviewed in this manner generally would not even be entitled to Chevron deference if the legal component of the mixed question were analyzed separately. Courts should therefore analyze the different components of a mixed …

Short Circuiting The Administrative Judiciary: A Response To Linda Jellum, Marshall J. Breger

Scholarly Articles

Linda Jellum provides a powerful analysis of the status of the exhaustion process for the SEC administrative judiciary and more broadly of the entire administrative judiciary. Many of her arguments are telling and on point. I disagree with a number of her technical and statutory arguments, and even more so the consequences of her analysis for the administrative state as we know it.

Jellum's argument is that Congress did not intend to preclude district courts from hearing constitutional challenges to SEC adjudications because agency ALJs are not the right adjudicators to hear challenges to the constitutionality of their own operations.

The Appropriate Appropriations Inquiry, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument this fall concerning whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutionally self-funded. The question presented in the case asks whether the statute establishing the CFPB’s self-funding scheme, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, “violates the Appropriations Clause.” But that question is incomplete at best, because although the Appropriations Clause requires that “appropriations” be “made by law,” the Appropriations Clause does not itself vest Congress with any authority to make “law” in the first place. Instead, Congress’s authority to make appropriations laws is vested in part by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, …

“Recommend . . . Measures”: A Textualist Reformulation Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

Following Biden v. Nebraska, defenders of the major questions doctrine (which requires administrative agencies to identify “clear congressional authorization” to regulate “major” issues) can be categorized as falling within one of two camps. The first camp includes Justices Gorsuch and Alito, who view the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon. The second camp includes Justice Barrett, who explained in Nebraska that she is “wary” of adopting new substantive canons, and indicated that she considers the major questions doctrine to be a linguistic canon. Interestingly, both camps have relied on an influential scholar to advance their positions: then Professor …

Congress's Anti-Removal Power, Christopher J. Walker, Aaron Nielson

Articles

Statutory restrictions on presidential removal of agency leadership enable agencies to act independently from the White House. Yet since 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court has held two times that such restrictions are unconstitutional precisely because they prevent the President from controlling policymaking within the executive branch. Recognizing that a supermajority of the Justices now appears to reject or at least limit the principle from Humphrey’s Executor that Congress may prevent the President from removing agency officials based on policy disagreement, scholars increasingly predict that the Court will soon further weaken agency independence if not jettison it altogether.

This Article challenges …

Re-Regulating Dietary Supplements, Jessie L. Bekker, Alex Flores, Michael S. Sinha

All Faculty Scholarship

In 1994, Congress introduced the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to create a regulatory framework for the dietary supplement industry. Since the passage of DSHEA nearly thirty years ago, U.S. adults have steadily increased their annual consumption of dietary supplements. The once $4 billion industry comprising approximately 4,000 products has swelled to a $40 billion trade with anywhere from 50,000 to 80,000 dietary supplements available over-the-counter.

Despite the increased market size of dietary supplements, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) pre-market authority to regulate the introduction of dietary supplements into the stream of commerce has remained subdued. Under …

Outsourcing Self-Regulation, Marsha Griggs

All Faculty Scholarship

Answerable only to the courts that have the sole authority to grant or withhold the right to practice law, lawyers operate under a system of self-regulation. The self-regulated legal profession staunchly resists external interference from the legislative and administrative branches of government. Yet, with the same fervor that the legal profession defies non-judicial oversight, it has subordinated itself to the controlling influence of a private corporate interest. By outsourcing the mechanisms that control admission to the bar, the legal profession has all but surrendered the most crucial component of its gatekeeping function to an industry that profits at the expense …

Aclp - Updated Estimates Of State Bead Allocations - As Of January 2023, New York Law School

Reports and Resources

No abstract provided.

The Exoskeleton Of Environmental Law: Why The Breadth, Depth And Longevity Of Environmental Law Matters For Judicial Review, Sanne H. Knudsen

Articles

Environmental law is pragmatic, inevitable, and intentional. In the aggregate, the numerous federal environmental statutes are not simply a patchwork of ad hoc responses or momentary political breakthroughs to isolated public health problems and resource concerns. Together, they are a group of repeated, legislatively-backed commitments to embrace self-restraint for self-preservation.

Self-restraint and discipline are the essence of environmental law. Indeed, if one studies the patterns and repeated choices in environmental law 's many statutory texts, one can start to appreciate environmental law 's indispensable role in society: it serves as an enduring "exoskeleton," a sort of protective armor created over …

Taxes, Administrative Law, And Agency Expertise: Questioning The Orthodoxy, Scott Schumacher

Articles

One of the foundations of administrative law is that federal agencies and their employees are experts in their respective fields. In addition, the many judgments and decisions made by these experts are based on a thorough record after extensive factfinding. As a result, so the theory goes, courts, particularly courts of general jurisdiction like the United States District Courts, should give deference to the determinations made by these experts. But what if the facts underpinning this foundation are not true in all cases? Should courts nevertheless provide deference to decisions by agencies when it is evident that an agency's determinations …

The Ghosts Of Chevron Present And Future, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

In the October 2021 term, the Supreme Court decided six cases involving federal agency interpretations of statutes, at least five of which seemingly implicated the Chevron doctrine and several of which explicitly turned on applications of Chevron in the lower courts. But while the Chevron doctrine has dominated federal administrative law for nearly four decades, not a single majority opinion during the term even cited Chevron. Three of those cases formalized the so-called “major questions” doctrine, which functions essentially as an anti-Chevron doctrine by requiring clear congressional statements of authority to justify agency action on matters of great legal and …

Vacatur, Nationwide Injunctions, And The Evolving Apa, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

The courts’ growing use of universal or nationwide injunctions to invalidate agency rules that they find to be unlawful has given rise to concern that such injunctions circumvent dialogue among the circuits, promote forum-shopping, and leave too much power in the hands of individual judges. Some scholars, joined by the Department of Justice, have argued that such judicial decisions should be limited through restrictive interpretations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

This article takes issue with these authorities. It argues that the courts’ use of the APA to vacate a rule as a whole—as opposed to merely enjoining application of …

India’S Use Of Public/Private Partnerships To Promote Rapid Expansion Of Solar Electricity Facilities, Kara Consalo

Journal Publications

This Article will explore the use of PPPs to encourage the flow of private capital and expertise toward development of low-carbon, low pollution, sustainable energy generation in India to achieve the country's ambitious goal of creating 175 gigawatts of renewably sourced electricity by 2022. The lessons in India's extensive use of PPPs to achieve such ambitious electricity goals should serve as a model for other governments to engage the private sector to successfully develop solar and other renewable energy projects with limited risk but with significant benefits for their citizens.

Can A Tribunal’S Former Counsel Appear Before The Tribunal? A Comment On Certain Container Chassis, Andrew Martin

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Lawyer mobility has been recognized as an important but not determinative consideration in legal ethics, particularly when it comes to conflicts of interest. Mobility poses particular issues for counsel to a tribunal. Those counsel may well at some point leave that position and pursue other opportunities. Prospective opportunities may sometimes involve appearing as counsel for a party before the same tribunal – especially where the tribunal operates in a highly specialized area of law. Can a lawyer appear before a tribunal if they were previously counsel to that tribunal? This discrete issue, though it rarely arises in the case law, …

Can A Tribunal’S Former Counsel Appear Before The Tribunal? A Comment On Certain Container Chassis, Andrew Martin

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Lawyer mobility has been recognized as an important but not determinative consideration in legal ethics, particularly when it comes to conflicts of interest. Mobility poses particular issues for counsel to a tribunal. Those counsel may well at some point leave that position and pursue other opportunities. Prospective opportunities may sometimes involve appearing as counsel for a party before the same tribunal – especially where the tribunal operates in a highly specialized area of law. Can a lawyer appear before a tribunal if they were previously counsel to that tribunal? This discrete issue, though it rarely arises in the case law, …

Assessing Visions Of Democracy In Regulatory Policymaking, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Christopher J. Walker

Articles

Motivated in part by Congress’s failure to legislate, presidents in recent years seem to have turned even more to the regulatory process to make major policy. It is perhaps no coincidence that the feld of administrative law has similarly seen a resurgence of scholarship extolling the virtues of democratic accountability in the modern administrative state. Some scholars have even argued that bureaucracy is as much as if not more democratically legitimate than Congress, either in the aggregative or deliberative sense, or both.

Amicus Brief In Sec V. Jarkesy On Original Public Meaning Of Article Ii & Presidential Removal, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

In holding that the SEC’s administrative law judges’ protections against removal were unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit extended Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 447 (2010), and Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020). Those precedents were based on an incomplete historical record. Subsequent historical research shows that the Founding generation never understood Article II to grant the President an indefeasible removal power.

To be sure, this evidence does not suggest Congress should have unlimited power to protect any executive office or delegate removal to itself. Rather, the bottom line is that the evidence of original public …