Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Chevron; Chevron (1)
- Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council (1)
- Inc.; Loper Bright; Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo; admin; administrative law; Administrative State; deference; judicial deference; agency; agency expertise; Marbury v. Madison; Magnuson-Stevens Act; Brand X; Nat’l Cable and Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv.; Burden Shifting; West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Injunctions; nonacquiescence; administrative law; nationwide injunctions; erroneous decisions; forum shopping; judicial review; judicial abuse; Make the Road New York v. McAleenan (1)
- Notice-and-comment; Administrative Procedure Act; rule-making; § 553; § 553 exemptions; federal agencies (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein
Brooklyn Law Review
Chevron deference has been a foundational principle for administrative law for decades. Chevron provided a two-step analysis for determining whether an agency would be given deference in its decision-making. This deferential test finds its legitimacy on the grounds of agency expertise and accountability. However, when the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo, it positioned itself to potentially overrule or severely limit Chevron. An overruling of Chevron would place judicial deference to administrative agency decisions in peril by allowing courts to substitute their own views over the informed opinions of agency experts. This …
Nationwide Injunctions And The Administrative State, Russell L. Weaver
Nationwide Injunctions And The Administrative State, Russell L. Weaver
Brooklyn Law Review
Where an administrative regulation is deemed by a court to be illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, courts sometimes issue nationwide injunctions. In other words, instead of holding that the regulation cannot be applied to the individuals before the court, the court prohibits the agency from applying the regulation anywhere in the country, including to others not before the court. This article explores the debate surrounding the appropriateness of nationwide injunctions. While at first glance such injunctions may seem to make sense, they can have serious consequences, including risk of abuse and forum shopping, amplification of erroneous decisions, and the negative …
The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann
The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann
Brooklyn Law Review
In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court elevated the major questions doctrine to new heights by reframing it as a substantive canon and clear statement rule rooted in the separation of powers. The academic response has missed two unanswered questions that will determine the extent of the doctrine’s domain. First, how will the Court apply the doctrine to a range of different regulatory schemes? The doctrine has so far only been applied to nationwide legislative rules that are both (1) economically or politically significant and (2) transformative. It is unclear whether the doctrine applies to alternative modes of regulation …
A Call To Replace The Apa’S Notice-And-Comment Exemption For Guidance Documents, Crystal M. Cummings
A Call To Replace The Apa’S Notice-And-Comment Exemption For Guidance Documents, Crystal M. Cummings
Brooklyn Law Review
Section 553 of the APA requires public “notice-and-comment” before a federal agency issues substantive rules and exempts from these procedures guidance documents that merely offer nonbinding insight and assistance on existing law. The problem of federal agencies using the notice-and-comment exemption to issue legislative rules that are legally binding has garnered considerable attention. Congressional efforts to amend the APA in response have failed and, in turn, variations have been offered on a seemingly simple fix—mandate or encourage agencies to solicit public input before issuing guidance documents. This note characterizes these proposals as overlays on the § 553(b)(A) exemption. The note …