Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Administrative Procedure Act (1)
- Agency decisionmaking (1)
- Amendment rules (1)
- Arbitrary and capricious (1)
- Article V (1)
-
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. (1)
- Caselaw (1)
- Hard look review (1)
- Judicial power (1)
- Judicial restraint (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Mirror-image reversibility (1)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1)
- Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (1)
- Rational-basis review (1)
- Rationality (1)
- Rules (1)
- States (1)
- Structuralism (1)
- Substantive values (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Amendment Creep, Jonathan L. Marshfield
Amendment Creep, Jonathan L. Marshfield
Michigan Law Review
To most lawyers and judges, constitutional amendment rules are nothing more than the technical guidelines for changing a constitution’s text. But amendment rules contain a great deal of substance that can be relevant to deciding myriad constitutional issues. Indeed, judges have explicitly drawn on amendment rules when deciding issues as far afield as immigration, criminal procedure, free speech, and education policy. The Supreme Court, for example, has reasoned that, because Article V of the U.S. Constitution places no substantive limitations on formal amendment, the First Amendment must protect even the most revolutionary political viewpoints. At the state level, courts have …
Thin Rationality Review, Jacob Gersen, Adrian Vermeule
Thin Rationality Review, Jacob Gersen, Adrian Vermeule
Michigan Law Review
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts review and set aside agency action that is “arbitrary [and] capricious.” In a common formulation of rationality review, courts must either take a “hard look” at the rationality of agency decisionmaking, or at least ensure that agencies themselves have taken a hard look. We will propose a much less demanding and intrusive interpretation of rationality review—a thin version. Under a robust range of conditions, rational agencies have good reason to decide in a manner that is inaccurate, nonrational, or arbitrary. Although this claim is seemingly paradoxical or internally inconsistent, it simply rests on an …