Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Against The Chenery Ii "Doctrine", Gary S. Lawson, Joseph Postell
Against The Chenery Ii "Doctrine", Gary S. Lawson, Joseph Postell
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s 1947 decision in SEC v. Chenery Corp. (“Chenery II”) is generally taken as blanket authorization for agencies to make law through either adjudication or rulemaking if their organic statutes permit both modes. We think this is an overreading of the doctrine. The decision in Chenery II need not be read so broadly, and there are good reasons to read it more narrowly. The most important reason is that agency lawmaking through adjudication presents serious constitutional concerns involving due process of law and subdelegation of legislative power, at least if the agency action deprives people of life, liberty, …
The Ghosts Of Chevron Present And Future, Gary S. Lawson
The Ghosts Of Chevron Present And Future, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
In the October 2021 term, the Supreme Court decided six cases involving federal agency interpretations of statutes, at least five of which seemingly implicated the Chevron doctrine and several of which explicitly turned on applications of Chevron in the lower courts. But while the Chevron doctrine has dominated federal administrative law for nearly four decades, not a single majority opinion during the term even cited Chevron. Three of those cases formalized the so-called “major questions” doctrine, which functions essentially as an anti-Chevron doctrine by requiring clear congressional statements of authority to justify agency action on matters of great legal and …
Loper Bright And The Future Of Chevron Deference, Jack M. Beermann
Loper Bright And The Future Of Chevron Deference, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The question presented in Loper Bright Industries v. Raimondo1 is “[w]hether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.” The Court denied certiorari on another question focused on the merits of the case,2 indicating that at least four of the Justices are anxious to revisit or at least clarify Chevron. It’s about time, although it’s far from certain that the Court will actually follow through with the promise the certiorari grant indicates.3 …
The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann
The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars Of The Law Of Non-Profit Organizations In Support Of Respondent: Americans For Prosperity Foundation V. Matthew Rodriguez, Nos. 19-251 & 19-255, Ellen P. Aprill, Roger Colinvaux, Sean Delany, James Fishman, Brian D. Galle, Philip Hackney, Jill R. Horwitz, Cindy Lott, Ray D. Madoff, Jill S. Manny, Nancy A. Mclaughlin, Richard Schmalbeck
Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars Of The Law Of Non-Profit Organizations In Support Of Respondent: Americans For Prosperity Foundation V. Matthew Rodriguez, Nos. 19-251 & 19-255, Ellen P. Aprill, Roger Colinvaux, Sean Delany, James Fishman, Brian D. Galle, Philip Hackney, Jill R. Horwitz, Cindy Lott, Ray D. Madoff, Jill S. Manny, Nancy A. Mclaughlin, Richard Schmalbeck
Amici Briefs
The twelve individuals filing this amicus brief are professors and scholars of the law of nonprofit organizations. No party in this case represents all three of charity’s key stakeholders: charities, states, and taxpayers who underwrite the charities’ funding. Amici are participating in this litigation in order to aid the Court in understanding how these three interests depend on one another. They also attempt to provide a clearer understanding of state supervision of charities and how that supervision related to federal tax law.
Presidential Progress On Climate Change: Will The Courts Interfere With What Needs To Be Done To Save Our Planet?, Michael B. Gerrard
Presidential Progress On Climate Change: Will The Courts Interfere With What Needs To Be Done To Save Our Planet?, Michael B. Gerrard
Faculty Scholarship
The Biden Administration is undertaking numerous actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition away from fossil fuels as part of the fight against climate change. Many of these actions are likely to be challenged in court. This paper describes the various legal theories that are likely to be used in these challenges, assesses their prospects of success given the current composition of the Supreme Court, and suggests ways to minimize the risks.
Rights And Retrenchment In The Trump Era, Stephen B. Burbank, Sean Farhang
Rights And Retrenchment In The Trump Era, Stephen B. Burbank, Sean Farhang
All Faculty Scholarship
Our aim in this essay is to leverage archival research, data and theoretical perspectives presented in our book, Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution against Federal Litigation, as a means to illuminate the prospects for retrenchment in the current political landscape. We follow the scheme of the book by separately considering the prospects for federal litigation retrenchment in three lawmaking sites: Congress, federal court rulemaking under the Rules Enabling Act, and the Supreme Court. Although pertinent data on current retrenchment initiatives are limited, our historical data and comparative institutional perspectives should afford a basis for informed prediction. Of course, little in …
Chevron's Interstitial Steps, Cary Coglianese
Chevron's Interstitial Steps, Cary Coglianese
All Faculty Scholarship
The Chevron doctrine’s apparent simplicity has long captivated judges, lawyers, and scholars. According to the standard formulation, Chevron involves just two straightforward steps: (1) Is a statute clear? (2) If not, is the agency’s interpretation of the statute reasonable? Despite the influence of this two-step framework, Chevron has come under fire in recent years. Some critics bemoan what they perceive as the Supreme Court’s incoherent application of the Chevron framework over time. Others argue that Chevron’s second step, which calls for courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions, amounts to an abdication of judicial responsibility. …