Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (28)
- Fordham Law School (10)
- Pepperdine University (6)
- University of Missouri School of Law (4)
- St. John's University School of Law (3)
-
- University of Richmond (3)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- Saint Louis University School of Law (2)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (2)
- University of Montana (2)
- University of San Diego (2)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (1)
- New York Law School (1)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (1)
- Notre Dame Law School (1)
- Pace University (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (1)
- U.S. Naval War College (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Kentucky (1)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (1)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Fordham Law Review (9)
- Michigan Law Review (9)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (6)
- Michigan Journal of International Law (4)
- Missouri Law Review (4)
-
- Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary (3)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (3)
- Pepperdine Law Review (3)
- St. John's Law Review (3)
- University of Richmond Law Review (3)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review (2)
- Public Land & Resources Law Review (2)
- Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology (1)
- Catholic University Law Review (1)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (1)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (1)
- Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal (1)
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law (1)
- International Law Studies (1)
- Kentucky Law Journal (1)
- Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law (1)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (1)
- Michigan Law Review Online (1)
- NYLS Law Review (1)
- Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy (1)
- Notre Dame Law Review (1)
- Oklahoma Law Review (1)
- Pace Law Review (1)
- Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 76
Full-Text Articles in Law
Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber
Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber
Notre Dame Law Review
The ministerial exception is a doctrine born out of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment that shields many religious institutions’ employment decisions from review. While the ministerial exception does not extend to all employment decisions by, or employees of, religious institutions, it does confer broad—and absolute—protection. While less controversy surrounds whether the Constitution shields religious institutions’ employment decisions to at least some extent, much more debate surrounds the exception’s scope, and perhaps most critically, which employees fall under it. In other words, who is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception?
The Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule And Why It Deserves Chevron Deference, Joseph Retzer
The Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule And Why It Deserves Chevron Deference, Joseph Retzer
Saint Louis University Law Journal
This Article reviews the history of CWA Section 401 and finds that it supports affording EPA’s newest interpretive rule Chevron deference. The CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule serves as an important case study of the doctrine which faces mounting criticisms and two cases challenging its legality in the Supreme Court at the time of this publication. Although its application delegates lawmaking authority to unelected officials who change policies with the tides of each election, this delegation has been necessary in many areas of the law due to Congress’s failure to act in recent years. Instead of simply …
From Deference To Indifference: Judicial Review Of The Scope Of Public Health Authority During The Covid-19 Pandemic, Wendy E. Parmet
From Deference To Indifference: Judicial Review Of The Scope Of Public Health Authority During The Covid-19 Pandemic, Wendy E. Parmet
Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy
For most of American history, courts have granted public health officials significant deference in construing the scope of their own authority. This changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the federal courts, where deference was replaced with skepticism as courts used the major questions doctrine to narrow the scope of public health powers. This Article examines this development and considers its implications for public health. Part II begins by recounting the long history of judicial deference to officials’ determination of the scope of their public health powers. Part III notes some of the problems with such deference and the pre-pandemic …
Judicial Deference To Agency Action Based On Ai, Cade Mallett
Judicial Deference To Agency Action Based On Ai, Cade Mallett
Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology
No abstract provided.
The Myth Of The All-Powerful Federal Prosecutor At Sentencing, Adam M. Gershowitz
The Myth Of The All-Powerful Federal Prosecutor At Sentencing, Adam M. Gershowitz
St. John's Law Review
(Excerpt)
Prosecutors are widely considered to be the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system. And federal prosecutors are particularly feared. While some recent scholarship casts doubt on the power of prosecutors, the prevailing wisdom is that prosecutors run the show, with judges falling in line and doing as prosecutors recommend.
This Article does not challenge the proposition that prosecutors are indeed quite powerful, particularly with respect to sentencing. There are many structural advantages built into the system that combine to give prosecutors enormous influence over sentences. For example, prosecutors have considerable power to bring a slew of charges …
The Force Of Law After Kisor, Beau J. Baumann
The Kavanaugh Court And The Schechter-To-Chevron Spectrum: How The New Supreme Court Will Make The Administrative State More Democratically Accountable, Justin Walker
Indiana Law Journal
In a typical year, Congress passes roughly 800 pages of law—that’s about a seveninch
stack of paper. But in the same year, federal administrative agencies promulgate
80,000 pages of regulations—which makes an eleven-foot paper pillar. This move
toward electorally unaccountable administrators deciding federal policy began in
1935, accelerated in the 1940s, and has peaked in the recent decades. Rather than
elected representatives, unelected bureaucrats increasingly make the vast majority
of the nation’s laws—a trend facilitated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in three
areas: delegation, deference, and independence.
This trend is about to be reversed. In the coming years, Congress will …
Montana Environmental Information Center V. Department Of Environmental Quality, Anthony P. Reed
Montana Environmental Information Center V. Department Of Environmental Quality, Anthony P. Reed
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The DEQ renewed a 1999 MPDES Permit on September 14, 2012 that allowed Western Energy Company to discharge pollutants from the Rosebud Mine into streams. Environmental groups MEIC and the Sierra Club sued, arguing this violated both the Montana Water Quality Act and federal Clean Water Act because the DEQ’s interpretation of its own regulations that exempted waters with ephemeral characteristics from water quality standards was arbitrary and capricious. The district court agreed, but the Montana Supreme Court reversed. It held the DEQ’s interpretation was lawful and remanded for further fact finding to assess how the DEQ applied the interpretation …
Symmetry's Mandate: Constraining The Politicization Of American Administrative Law, Daniel E. Walters
Symmetry's Mandate: Constraining The Politicization Of American Administrative Law, Daniel E. Walters
Michigan Law Review
Recent years have seen the rise of pointed and influential critiques of deference doctrines in administrative law. What many of these critiques have in common is a view that judges, not agencies, should resolve interpretive disputes over the meaning of statutes—disputes the critics take to be purely legal and almost always resolvable using lawyerly tools of statutory construction. In this Article, I take these critiques, and the relatively formalist assumptions behind them, seriously and show that the critics have not acknowledged or advocated the full reform vision implied by their theoretical premises. Specifically, critics have extended their critique of judicial …
College Athletics: The Chink In The Seventh Circuit's "Law And Economics" Armor, Michael A. Carrier, Marc Edelman
College Athletics: The Chink In The Seventh Circuit's "Law And Economics" Armor, Michael A. Carrier, Marc Edelman
Michigan Law Review Online
If any court is linked to the “law and economics” movement, it is the Seventh Circuit, home of former Judge Richard Posner, the “Chicago School,” and analysis based on markets and economics. It thus comes as a surprise that in college-athletics cases, the court has replaced economic analysis with legal formalisms. In adopting a deferential approach that would uphold nearly every rule the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) claims is related to amateurism, the court recalls the pre- Chicago School era, in which courts aggressively applied “per se” illegality based on a restraint’s form, rather than substance. While the …
The Application Of Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act To Employment Discrimination: Why The Circuits Have Gotten It Wrong, William Brooks
The Application Of Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act To Employment Discrimination: Why The Circuits Have Gotten It Wrong, William Brooks
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen
A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
President Trump’s executive order rescinding federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” has brought a critical, but overlooked, question of constitutional law to the forefront of the political debate: how does the Spending Clause apply to local governments? The purpose of the Spending Clause is to empower the federal government to bargain with the states to enact policies it cannot enact itself. This power, however, is constrained within the confines of federalism. The Supreme Court has sought to restrict the Spending Clause by crafting the Dole-NFIB framework, a test to determine whether a federal grant has compromised federalism. At its …
Judicial Review In An Age Of Hyper-Polarization And Alternative Facts, David A. Dana, Michael Barsa
Judicial Review In An Age Of Hyper-Polarization And Alternative Facts, David A. Dana, Michael Barsa
San Diego Journal of Climate & Energy Law
This Article is organized as follows: Part I reviews the case law and commentary on judicial review of agency shifts in policy or practice, focusing on the technocratic case for deference and how recent political realities call such deference into question. Part II sets forth the background and history regarding fuel economy standards, leading to the Obama Administration’s adoption of standards in 2012 and the “midterm” review of those standards that Obama’s EPA declared final as of January 2017. Part II also reviews the legal issues surrounding Trump’s EPA’s “re-opening” of the midterm review. We suggest how courts could, and …
Agency Pragmatism In Addressing Law’S Failure: The Curious Case Of Federal “Deemed Approvals” Of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts, Kevin K. Washburn
Agency Pragmatism In Addressing Law’S Failure: The Curious Case Of Federal “Deemed Approvals” Of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts, Kevin K. Washburn
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Congress imposed a decision-forcing mechanism on the Secretary of the Interior related to tribal-state compacts for Indian gaming. Congress authorized the Secretary to review such compacts and approve or disapprove each compact within forty-five days of submission. Under an unusual provision of law, however, if the Secretary fails to act within forty-five days, the compact is “deemed approved” by operation of law but only to the extent that it is lawful. In a curious development, this regime has been used in a different manner than Congress intended. Since the United States …
Endangered Deference: Separation Of Powers And Judicial Review Of Agency Interpretation, Kathryn M. Baldwin
Endangered Deference: Separation Of Powers And Judicial Review Of Agency Interpretation, Kathryn M. Baldwin
St. John's Law Review
(Excerpt)
This Note proceeds in four parts: Part I consists of a brief history of the development of agency deference doctrine. Part II examines the decline of deference from the perspective of all three branches of government: the overuse by the executive agency that catalyzed deference’s denouement, the underuse by the United States Supreme Court and renewed separation of powers challenges, and the parallel assault from Congress under the pending SOPRA. Part III addresses the proposed de novo review standard and highlights the deficiencies in that solution, emphasizing instead the tools that Congress already employs to meaningfully check agency interpretations. …
In Defense Of A Little Judiciary: A Textual And Constitutional Foundation For Chevron, Terence J. Mccarrick Jr.
In Defense Of A Little Judiciary: A Textual And Constitutional Foundation For Chevron, Terence J. Mccarrick Jr.
San Diego Law Review
This Article hopes to help fill that “important gap in the administrative law literature.” And it proceeds in three parts. Part II offers a brief history of the Chevron doctrine and its discontents. It traces the doctrine’s origin and scope and ends by articulating the textualist and originalist critique of Chevron described above. Part III grapples with that criticism and offers a textualist and originalist defense of Chevron. Section III.A describes the textual footing for Chevron in the APA and argues that Chevron—if not commanded by the APA—does not upset the role it envisions for courts. Section III.B describes the …
Native Ecosystems Council V. Marten, Rebecca A. Newsom
Native Ecosystems Council V. Marten, Rebecca A. Newsom
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten, the Ninth Circuit found that the United States Forest Service did not violate the Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, or National Environmental Policy Act, when it proposed the Lonesome Wood Vegetation Management 2 Project in the Gallatin National Forest of Montana, even though the decision was inconsistent with the United States Forest Service’s reports. The Ninth Circuit’s holding demonstrated the wide amount of deference the courts will give the Forest Service when determining the best available scientific data.
International Courts Improve Public Deliberation, Shai Dothan
International Courts Improve Public Deliberation, Shai Dothan
Michigan Journal of International Law
The paper starts with the effects of international courts on the broader public and narrows down to their influence on a small elite of lawyers. Part I suggests that international courts captivate the public imagination, allowing citizens to articulate their rights. Part II demonstrates how governments, parliaments, and national courts around the world interact with international courts in ways that improve public deliberation. Part III studies the global elite of lawyers that work in conjunction with international courts to shape policy. Part IV concludes by arguing that the dialogue fostered between international courts and democratic bodies does, in fact, lead …
The Virtues Of Abstention: Separation Of Powers In Al-Nashiri Ii, Nicholas A. Dimarco
The Virtues Of Abstention: Separation Of Powers In Al-Nashiri Ii, Nicholas A. Dimarco
St. John's Law Review
(Excerpt)
Part I examines various scholarly approaches to judicial deference, then considers deference in the context of military commissions. In Part II, the history of military commissions in the United States is examined, paying particular attention to the extended dialogue among the coordinate federal branches that created the system currently in operation. The decision in Al-Nashiri II not to adjudicate a collateral attack on one of these commissions is the focus of Part III. That Part embraces the underlying jurisdictional challenge at stake in Al-Nashiri II, the development of abstention doctrine generally and as applied to the current commissions, …
Running From The Gender Police: Reconceptualizing Gender To Ensure Protection For Non-Binary People, Katie Reineck
Running From The Gender Police: Reconceptualizing Gender To Ensure Protection For Non-Binary People, Katie Reineck
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
Non-binary people who are discriminated against at work or school are in a unique and demoralizing position. Not only have some courts expressed reluctance to use existing antidiscrimination law to protect plaintiffs who are discriminated against based on their gender identity and not simply because they are men or women, in most states non-binary genders are not legally recognized. I argue that a fundamental right to self-identification grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would provide non-binary plaintiffs with the ability to assert their gender in court and have that assertion carry legal weight, regardless of how …
Chevron In The Circuit Courts, Kent Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Chevron In The Circuit Courts, Kent Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Michigan Law Review
This Article presents findings from the most comprehensive empirical study to date on how the federal courts of appeals have applied Chevrondeference— the doctrine under which courts defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers. Based on 1,558 agency interpretations the circuit courts reviewed from 2003 through 2013 (where they cited Chevron), we found that the circuit courts overall upheld 71% of interpretations and applied Chevrondeference 77% of the time. But there was nearly a twenty-five-percentage-point difference in agency-win rates when the circuit courts applied Chevrondeference than when they did …
The Rowley Enigma: How Much Weight Is Due To Idea State Administrative Proceedings In Federal Court?, Daniel W. Morton-Bentley
The Rowley Enigma: How Much Weight Is Due To Idea State Administrative Proceedings In Federal Court?, Daniel W. Morton-Bentley
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
In this article, I argue that the phrase "due weight" incorporates a deferential review standard equivalent to the clear error or substantial evidence standard, a conclusion reached by a minority of the circuit courts of appeal. I further argue that, consistent with Rowley, federal courts must afford due weight to administrative officers' substantive or educational conclusions, but no weight to their procedural or non-educational conclusions. Part II offers a general outline of the IDEA, giving special attention to its judicial review provisions. In Part III, I provide a general discussion of judicial review of administrative adjudication. Part IV is devoted …
Without Deference, Jeffrey A. Pojanowski
Without Deference, Jeffrey A. Pojanowski
Missouri Law Review
I argue that such an alternative regime has appealing features but may not bring as much practical change as casual critiques or defenses of Chevron contemplate, at least immediately. The more immediate change would arise at the level of theory and rhetoric, which, in turn, may lead to greater practical changes in the longer run. The theoretical presuppositions underwriting a regime of non-deferential review are far more classical in cast than the moderate legal realism underwriting Chevron. Rejecting deference, therefore, would change how courts talk about the difference between law and policy in the administrative state. The resurrection of the …
Toward A Context-Specific Chevron Deference, Christopher J. Walker
Toward A Context-Specific Chevron Deference, Christopher J. Walker
Missouri Law Review
With Justice Scalia’s passing, the Supreme Court is less likely to consider overturning the administrative law doctrines affording deference to agency statutory interpretations (Chevron deference) or agency regulatory interpretations (Auer deference). Without Justice Scalia on the Court, however, a different kind of narrowing becomes more likely. The Court may well embrace Chief Justice Roberts’s context-specific Chevron doctrine, as articulated in his dissent in City of Arlington v. FCC and his opinion for the Court in King v. Burwell. This Article, which is part of a symposium on the future of the administrative state, explores the Chief Justice’s more limited approach …
Marbury V. Madison And The Concept Of Judicial Deference, Aditya Bamzai
Marbury V. Madison And The Concept Of Judicial Deference, Aditya Bamzai
Missouri Law Review
Part I summarizes Marbury’s statutory analysis. Part II picks up that summary and analyzes each of the three types of “deference” discussed in the Marbury opinion. Part III provides some concluding thoughts.
The Constitutional Limits Of Client-Centered Decision Making, Todd A. Berger
The Constitutional Limits Of Client-Centered Decision Making, Todd A. Berger
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Obviousness As Fact: The Issue Of Obviousness In Patent Law Should Be A Question Of Fact Reviewed With Appropriate Deference, Ted L. Field
Obviousness As Fact: The Issue Of Obviousness In Patent Law Should Be A Question Of Fact Reviewed With Appropriate Deference, Ted L. Field
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal
One of the most common defenses that an accused infringer raises in a patent infringement lawsuit is that the patent claims at issue are invalid for obviousness. The question of obviousness is based on several factual determinations, and the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should sensibly review these determinations with deference to the jury’s or trial court’s findings. But these courts instead treat the ultimate determination of obviousness as a question of law to be reviewed de novo. This Article challenges the correctness of this standard of review and argues that courts …
To Seek A Newer World: Prisoners’ Rights At The Frontier, David M. Shapiro
To Seek A Newer World: Prisoners’ Rights At The Frontier, David M. Shapiro
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Prisoners’ rights lawyers have long faced a dismal legal landscape. Yet, 2015 was a remarkable year for prison litigation that could signal a new period for this area of law—the Supreme Court handed down decisions that will reverberate in prison jurisprudence for decades to come. New questions have been asked, new avenues opened. This piece is about what the Court has done recently, and what possibilities it has opened for the future. More broadly, I suggest that the Court may be subjecting prison officials to greater scrutiny and that this shifting judicial landscape reflects an evolving social discourse about prison …
Redefining “Peril”—Abating The Interest On A Tax Deficiency For Good Faith Reliance On Irs Publications, Brady Cox
Pepperdine Law Review
Many taxpayers rely on guidance materials the IRS provides in order to comprehend the United States Tax Code and pay an accurate tax. However, many, if not all, of these taxpayers would likely be startled to learn that their reliance on these IRS guidance materials is perilous. That is, that reliance upon these guidance materials will not support a taxpayer’s tax treatment decisions if the IRS decides that the decisions were incorrect under substantive law. However, because the courts have not decisively concluded which financial consequences a taxpayer faces or escapes by relying on informal IRS guidance, “peril” remains undefined. …
King V. Burwell: What Does It Portend For Chevron’S Domain?, Leandra Lederman, Joseph C. Dugan
King V. Burwell: What Does It Portend For Chevron’S Domain?, Leandra Lederman, Joseph C. Dugan
Pepperdine Law Review
This short Essay considers what the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015), suggests about the future of Chevron deference. It first compares the Court’s approach in King with its approach in two other “extraordinary” nondeference cases, FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and Gonzales v. Oregon. It next situates King in a broader context of developments in the Court’s Chevron jurisprudence. The Essay concludes that, while King may simply be a sui generis case involving an important social program, it may also signal a fading appetite for deference among the Justices. - …