Judges Commons^™

Resolving Alj Removal Protections Problem Following Lucia, Spencer Davenport

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

When the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC and held that administrative law judges (ALJs) are Officers under the Constitution, the Court opened a flood of constitutional issues around the status of ALJs and related government positions. One central issue relates to ALJs’ removal protections. ALJs currently have two layers of protection between them and the President. In an earlier Supreme Court decision, the Court held that two layers of tenure protection between an “Officer of the United States” and the President was unconstitutional as it deprived the President the power to hold his officers accountable. As impartial adjudicators, ALJs …

Both Sides Of The Rock: Justice Gorsuch And The Seminole Rock Deference Doctrine, Kevin O. Leske

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Despite being early in his tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch has already made his presence known. His October 16, 2017 statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Scenic America, Inc. v. Department of Transportation garnered significant attention within the legal community. Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the Court’s bedrock 2-part test from Chevron, U.S.A. v. NRDC—whereby courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term—should apply in the case.

Justice Gorsuch’s criticism of the Chevron doctrine was not a surprise. In the …

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 …

Fun With Administrative Law: A Game For Lawyers And Judges, Adam Babich

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

The practice of law is not a game. Administrative law in particular can implicate important issues that impact people’s health, safety, and welfare and change business’ profitability or even viability. Nonetheless, it can seem like a game. This is because courts rarely explain administrative law rulings in terms of the public purposes and policies at issue in lawsuits. Instead, the courts’ administrative law opinions tend to turn on arcane interpretive doctrines with silly names, such as the “Chevron two-step” or “Chevron step zero.” To advance doctrinal arguments, advocates and courts engage in linguistic debates that resemble a smokescreen—tending to obscure …

"Quotidian" Judges Vs. Al-Qaeda, Mark S. Davies

Michigan Law Review

In Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts, University of Chicago law professors Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule invite those of us worried about the American response to al-Qaeda to consider the proper role of judges. Judges, of course, are not being dispatched to the hills of Pakistan nor are they securing our borders or buildings. But as the executive seeks to implement a range of new policies in the name of protecting us from al-Qaeda, the judicial treatment of these policies shapes the American response. Posner and Vermeule suggest a kind of Hippocratic view of …

Protecting The Independence Of Administrative Law Judges: A Model Administrative Law Judge Corps Statute, Karen Y. Kauper

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note concludes that the federal government should adopt some form of central panel system to protect both the independence of the ALJs and the public interest. Part I of this Note presents several alternatives to the central panel systems that have been proposed in past years and discusses their inadequacies. Part II summarizes the arguments concerning the central panel system of administrative adjudication. Part III discusses several of the integral elements of a central panel system and analyzes the state statutes and the proposed federal legislation in light of these elements. Finally, Part IV proposes a model statute for …

Eminent Domain - Procedure - Relation Of Judge And Jury In Michigan Condemnation Proceedings, John H. Jackson S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The relationship of judge to jury in Michigan condemnation proceedings presents in many ways a merger of some of the problems and questions contained in the relationship of judge to jury in civil trials, and of court to tribunal in administrative law. Theorists as well as the practicing lawyer in Michigan and some other states" may well find in the development of the Michigan condemnation proceeding an interesting example of the growth of a procedure for adjudication, in a context of cross-fire between legislative ideas and judicial interpretation of a constitutional provision.

Administrative Law - Judicial Control - Appellate Review Of Federal Trade Commission Proceedings, David A. Nelson S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

During its forty-five year life the Federal Trade Commission has gone through some difficult periods to emerge today as one of the fundamental instrumentalities of government in the regulation of business. Its vast powers and influence, well known to lawyers, will not be explored here. Rather, the purpose of this comment is to appraise the extent of control which the judiciary now exercises over the commission in its adjudicative functions, so as to offer some indication to the practitioner of the probabilities regarding the outcome of judicial review on an appeal beyond the full commission. The approach to be used …

Vanderbilt: Men And Measures In The Law, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Review of MEN AND MEASURES IN THE LAW. By Arthur T. Vanderbilt.

Mandamus Against A Governor, Edward J. Myers

Michigan Law Review

The question whether the courts have the power to issue he writ of mandamus against the chief executive of a state to compel the performance of a duty imposed upon him by law, has been answered in two irreconcilable lines of decision-the one being that the Governor is not answerable to the writ to compel the performance of his duty, be it either discretionary or ministerial in its character, the other, that he is liable to the writ to compel the performance of duties purely ministerial in nature. Mr. High, in his work on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, says: "The jurisdiction …