Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Judicial Deference To Administrative Statutory Interpretation In The Modern American Administrative State, Rachel Marie Macmaster
Judicial Deference To Administrative Statutory Interpretation In The Modern American Administrative State, Rachel Marie Macmaster
Dissertations - ALL
The American administrative state of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is defined by deference by federal courts to administrative agencies. The political science and (especially) legal literatures have long discussed how federal courts defer to agencies, but little attention has been dedicated to how to identify deference and why courts defer. This dissertation redefines deference, a term that has been topic of extensive discussion in the last forty years but that was missing a key feature: the intent of the deferrers. Using administrative courts as the proxy for agencies at large, this dissertation suggests three reasons why judges may defer. …
Judicial Deference To Administrative Statutory Interpretation In The Modern American Administrative State, Rachel Marie Macmaster
Judicial Deference To Administrative Statutory Interpretation In The Modern American Administrative State, Rachel Marie Macmaster
Dissertations - ALL
The American administrative state of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is defined by deference by federal courts to administrative agencies. The political science and (especially) legal literatures have long discussed how federal courts defer to agencies, but little attention has been dedicated to how to identify deference and why courts defer. This dissertation redefines deference, a term that has been topic of extensive discussion in the last forty years but that was missing a key feature: the intent of the deferrers. Using administrative courts as the proxy for agencies at large, this dissertation suggests three reasons why judges may defer. …
Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Neutral?, David M. Driesen
Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Neutral?, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) owes much of its appeal to its image as a neutral principle for deciding upon the appropriate stringency of environmental, health, and safety regulation. This article examines whether CBA is neutral in effect, i.e. whether it sometimes makes regulations more stringent or regularly leads to weaker health, safety and environmental protection. It also addresses the question of whether CBA offers either an objective value-neutral method or procedural neutrality. This Article shows that CBA has almost always proven anti-environmental in practice and that, in many ways, it is anti-environmental in theory. It examines the practice of the Bush …
Reinventing Public Administration While "De-Inventing" Administrative Law: Is It Time For An "Apa" For Regulating Outsourced Government Work, David H. Rosenbloom, Suzanne J. Piotrowski
Reinventing Public Administration While "De-Inventing" Administrative Law: Is It Time For An "Apa" For Regulating Outsourced Government Work, David H. Rosenbloom, Suzanne J. Piotrowski
Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce
Using state-of-the art "reinvented" public administration, which emphasizes steering rather rowing,2 the DOD outsourced creation of the database to a private firm, BeNow, Inc. In the process of reinventing its public administration the U.S. is "de-inventing" administrative law. More importantly, perhaps, it is doing so by default, that is, without serious and substantial public discussion and political debate on whether cost-effectiveness and other values associated with reinvented public administration should trump the norms embodied in administrative law. The readiness to accept the reinventers' vision of "a government that works better and costs less" is all the more striking in view …
Distributing The Costs Of Environmental, Health, And Safety Protection: The Feasibility Principle, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Regulatory Reform, David M. Driesen
Distributing The Costs Of Environmental, Health, And Safety Protection: The Feasibility Principle, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Regulatory Reform, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Standing For Nothing: The Paradox Of Demanding Concrete Context For Formalist Adjudication, David M. Driesen
Standing For Nothing: The Paradox Of Demanding Concrete Context For Formalist Adjudication, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
This article examines a paradox found in public law cases. While justiciability doctrines aim to provide concrete context for adjudication of public law questions by insisting upon individual injury, often the Supreme Court ignores the litigants' injuries when it turns to the merits of cases. Examination of this paradox leads to a fuller appreciation of the structure and nature of public law. In particular, it sheds light on a recent debate in leading law reviews about whether constitutional litigation should be seen as about individual rights or the validity of legal rules. It also raises serious questions about the modern …
Distributing The Costs Of Environmental, Health, And Safety Protection: The Feasability Principle, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Regulatory Reform, David M. Driesen
Distributing The Costs Of Environmental, Health, And Safety Protection: The Feasability Principle, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Regulatory Reform, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
This article offers a normative theory justifying the feasability principle found in many environmental statutes. It then uses this theory to shine light on the regulatory reform debate. The feasability principle precludes widespread plant shutdowns while maximizing the stringency of regulation that does not have this outcome. The feasability principle provides meaningful guidance regarding both maximum and minimum stringency and a reasonable democratically chosen response to distributional concerns. Pollution's tendency to concentrate severe harms upon randomly selected pollution victims justifies the stringency of this approach. Normally, cost concerns cannot justify failure to protect people from death, illness, and ecological destruction. …