Law Commons^™

The Submerged Administrative State, Gabriel Scheffler, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The United States government is experiencing a reputation crisis: after decades of declining public trust, many Americans have lost confidence in the government’s capacity to perform its basic functions. While various explanations have been offered for this worrying trend, these existing accounts overlook a key factor: people are unfamiliar with the institutions that actually do most of the governing—administrative agencies—and they devalue what they cannot easily observe. The “submerged” nature of the administrative state is, we argue, a central reason for declining trust in government.

This Article shows that the administrative state is systematically submerged in two ways. First, administrative …

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. …

Separation Of Powers By Contract: How Collective Bargaining Reshapes Presidential Power, Nicholas Handler

Faculty Scholarship

This Article demonstrates for the first time how civil servants check and restrain presidential power through collective bargaining. The executive branch is typically depicted as a top-down hierarchy. The President, as chief executive, issues directives with vast implications for federal policy. Usually, the tenured bureaucracy of civil servants below him follow these directives. Occasionally, when the President’s policies appear corrupt or ill-advised, bureaucrats may illicitly “resist” them. This presumed top-down structure shapes many influential critiques of the modern administrative state. Proponents of a strong President decry civil servants as an unelected “deep state” usurping popular will. Skeptics of presidential power …

Keynote Address: "Attacking And Defending The Administrative State", Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

At the beginning of this semester I told my students at Boston University that this is the most interesting time to take administrative law since I started teaching it nearly forty years ago. Doctrines that seemed settled just a few years ago have been questioned and significant change seems to be on the horizon. Don't get me wrong, we've been here before. In the 1970s and 1980s there were a few Supreme Court decisions on separation of powers¹ that indicated the possibility of big changes, but ultimately it fizzled out into the administrative law revolution that wasn't.

Things feel …

Four Futures Of Chevron Deference, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

In two upcoming cases, the Supreme Court will consider whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which, since 1984, has required courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of otherwise ambiguous statutes. In this short essay, I defend the proposition that, even on death’s door, Chevron deference is likely to be resurrected, and I offer a simple positive political theory model that helps explain why. The core insight of this model is that the prevailing approach to judicial review of agency interpretations of law is politically contingent—that is, it is likely to represent an equilibrium that efficiently maximizes the Supreme Court’s …

The Major Questions Doctrine At The Boundaries Of Interpretive Law, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s apparent transformation of the major questions doctrine into a clear statement rule demanding clear congressional authorization for “major” agency actions has already had, and will continue to have, wide-ranging impacts on American public law. Not the least of these is the impact it will have on the enterprise of statutory interpretation. Indeed, while it is easy to focus on the policy repercussions of a newly constrained Congress and newly hamstrung administrative state, this Article argues that equally important is the novel precedent that is set in this particular formulation of a clear statement rule, which stands almost …

The Administrative State, Financial Regulation, And The Case For Commissions, Kathryn Judge, Dan Awrey

Faculty Scholarship

Administrative law is under attack, with the Supreme Court reviving, expanding, and creating doctrines that limit the authority and autonomy wielded by regulatory agencies. This anti-administrative turn is particularly alarming for financial regulation, which already faces enormous challenges stemming from the dynamism of modern finance, its growing complexity, and fundamental contestability. Yet that does not mean that defending the current regime is the optimal response. The complexity and dynamism of modern finance also undercut the efficacy of established administrative procedures. And the panoply of financial regulators with unclear and overlapping jurisdictional bounds only adds to the challenge. Both these procedural …

The Making Of Presidential Administration, Ashraf Ahmed, Lev Menand, Noah Rosenblum

Faculty Scholarship

Today, the idea that the President possesses at least some constitutional authority to direct administrative action is accepted by the courts, Congress, and the legal academy. But it was not always so. For most of American history — indeed until relatively recently — Presidents derived their authority over the administrative state largely from statute. Any role for the White House in agency rulemaking or adjudication had to be legally specified. Scholars mostly agree about when this change occurred. But the dominant shared narrative — exemplified by then-Professor Elena Kagan’s seminal article Presidential Administration — is Whig history. It offers a …

The Toll Paid When Adjudicators Err: Reforming Appellate Review Standards For Refugees, Charles Shane Ellison

Faculty Scholarship

Deep, variegated, and unresolved tensions run between and within the U.S. courts of appeals’ standard of review classifications of the five core elements of the refugee definition. Several circuits have taken note of their dissonant jurisprudence, calling for either en banc or Supreme Court intervention. While existing scholarship raises cogent criticisms of excessive factual deference in U.S. immigration adjudications, very little attention has been paid to how the fact-law divide regarding the refugee definition maps onto review standards in the appellate context. This dearth of scholarly consideration is accompanied by the reality that standards of review often decide cases where …

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 …}

One-Offs, William Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Book Review: Hidden In Plain Sight: Redefining The Field Of National Security, Aziza Ahmed

Faculty Scholarship

Eventually, litigation challenging the Executive Order made it to the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs, including the Muslim Association of Hawaii and individual Muslims, challenged the constitutionality of the law.⁴ In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court found the Executive Order constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion dismisses the claims by the Plaintiffs that the Executive Orders were driven by anti-Muslim animus. The justices separate Trump's comments about Muslims from the Executive Order itself. They "look behind" the Executive Order and use rational basis review to uphold the order on the grounds that vetting immigrants could be "plausibly related to …