Law Commons^™

How Laws Are Made: The Administrative Agencies, Sharon Bradley

Presentations

Law, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, is “a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority and having binding legal force.” Our laws come from our three branches of Government: legislative, executive, and judicial. These webinars will focus on the law-making activities of each branch, the documents that are created during the process, and how they are used by lawyers and legal researchers.

Administrative agencies are part of the executive branch of Government headed by the President. They make laws through the rule-making process, but they also enforce the rules and have quasi-judicial power.

Chevron In The Circuit Courts: The Codebook Appendix, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker

Scholarly Works

For our empirical study on the use of Chevron deference in the federal courts of appeals, we utilized the following Codebook. This Codebook draws substantially from the codebook appended to William Eskridge and Lauren Baer's pathbreaking study of administrative law's deference doctrines at the Supreme Court. Our research assistants and we followed the instructions below when coding judicial decisions. To address questions as they arose and to ensure consistent coding, we maintained close contact with each other and our research assistants throughout the project and clarified the Codebook to address additional issues. Further details concerning our methodology (and its limitations) …

Looking More Closely At The Platypus Of Formal Rulemaking, Kent H. Barnett

Popular Media

Professor Kent Barnett argues that the oft-criticized formal rulemaking process has virtues in proper settings.

How The Supreme Court Derailed Formal Rulemaking, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

Based on archival research, this Essay explores the untold story of how the Supreme Court in the 1970s largely ended “formal” trial-like rulemaking by federal agencies in two railway cases. In the first, nearly forgotten decision, United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp., the Court held sua sponte that an agency was not required to use formal rulemaking, despite its significant historical provenance. That unpersuasive decision all but decided the second, better-known decision, United States v. Florida East Coast Railway, the following term. In response to both decisions, agencies abandoned formal rulemaking—one of only four broad categories of agency action—and policymakers …

Dictation And Delegation In Securities Regulation, Usha Rodrigues

Scholarly Works

When Congress undertakes major financial reform, either it dictates the precise contours of the law itself or it delegates the bulk of the rulemaking to an administrative agency. This choice has critical consequences. Making the law self-executing in federal legislation is swift, not subject to administrative tinkering, and less vulnerable than rulemaking to judicial second-guessing. Agency action is, in contrast, deliberate, subject to ongoing bureaucratic fiddling and more vulnerable than statutes to judicial challenge.

This Article offers the first empirical analysis of the extent of congressional delegation in securities law from 1970 to the present day, examining nine pieces of …

Short-Circuiting The New Major Questions Doctrine, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker

Scholarly Works

In Minor Courts, Major Questions, Michael Coenen and Seth Davis advance perhaps the most provocative proposal to date to address the new major questions doctrine articulated in King v. Burwell. They argue that the Supreme Court alone should identify “major questions” that deprive agencies of interpretive primacy, prohibiting the doctrine’s use in the lower courts. Although we agree that the Court provided little guidance about the doctrine’s scope in King v. Burwell, we are unpersuaded that the solution to this lack of guidance is to limit its doctrinal development to one court that hears fewer than eighty cases per year. …

Chevron In The Circuit Courts, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker

Scholarly Works

This Article presents findings from the most comprehensive empirical study to date on how the federal courts of appeals have applied Chevron deference—the doctrine under which courts defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers. Based on 1,558 agency interpretations the circuit courts reviewed from 2003 through 2013 (where they cited Chevron), we found that the circuit courts overall upheld 71% of interpretations and applied Chevron deference 77% of the time. But there was nearly a twenty-five-percentage-point difference in agency-win rates when the circuit courts applied Chevron deference than when they did not. Among …

Trademarks “Lanham Act” Foreign Registrants Need Not Allege Use In The United States And May Waive Filing Requirements Required For Domestic Applications (Scm Corporation V. Langis Foods, Ltd., D.C. Cir. 1976), John A. Cutler

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Georgia Open Records Law Electronic Signature Exception: The Intersection Of Privacy, Technology, And Open Records, Michael L. Van Cise

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

There Is A Better Way: It's Time To Overhaul The Model For Participation In Private Standard-Setting, Robert M. Webb

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Shifting The Burden Of Proving Patentability Vel Non In View Of Dickinson V. Zurko, Dawn-Marie Bey

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

This paper addresses the Patent Office's misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Dickinson v. Zurko regarding the applicability of the factual review standards of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to Patent Office findings. More particularly, in accordance with this misinterpretation, recent guidelines promulgated by the Patent Office violate the APA and controlling precedent.

To date, the proper procedures for prosecuting a patent application have been carefully honed through a myriad of statutes, rules, and controlling legal opinions. The resulting procedures are set forth in exemplary prose in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) issued and revised periodically by …

Ebola, Experimental Medicine, Economics, And Ethics: An Evaluation Of International Disease Outbreak Law, Sara L. Dominey

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

New Judicial Review In Old Europe, Alyssa S. King

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Reaching For Environmental And Economic Harmony: Can Ttip Negotiations Bridge The U.S.-Eu Chemical Regulatory Gap?, Ashley Henson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Water, Water Everywhere, But Just How Much Is Clean?: Examining Water Quality Restoration Efforts Under The United States Clean Water Act And The United States-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Jill T. Hauserman

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Sovereign Immunity - The State Department’S Decision To Recognize And Allow The Claim Of Sovereign Immunity Is Binding Upon The Courts And Is Not Subject To Review Under The Administrative Procedure Act, Robin B. Gray Jr., George P. Shingler

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Against Administrative Judges, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

The single largest cadre of federal adjudicators goes largely ignored by scholars, policymakers, courts, and even litigating parties. These Administrative Judges or “AJs,” often confused with well-known federal Administrative Law Judges or “ALJs,” operate by the thousands in numerous federal agencies. Yet unlike ALJs, the significantly more numerous AJs preside over less formal hearings and have no significant statutory protections to preserve their impartiality. The national press has recently called attention to the alleged unfairness of certain ALJ proceedings, and regulated parties have successfully enjoined agencies’ use of ALJs. While fixes are necessary for ALJ adjudication, any solution that ignores …

Standing For (And Up To) Separation Of Powers, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Constitution requires federal agencies to comply with separation-of-powers (or structural) safeguards, such as by obtaining valid appointments, exercising certain limited powers, and being sufficiently subject to the President’s control. Who can best protect these safeguards? A growing number of scholars call for allowing only the political branches — Congress and the President — to defend them. These scholars would limit or end judicial review because private judicial challenges are aberrant to justiciability doctrine and lead courts to meddle in minor matters that rarely effect regulatory outcomes.

This Article defends the right of private parties to assert justiciable structural …

The Motor City Needs Oil (On Canvas): An Argument In Support Of Detroit's "Grand Bargain", Jonathan A. Weeks

Georgia Law Review

Now the largest municipality in the history of the United States to go bankrupt, Detroit very nearly lost its famous art collection to its creditors. To protect its collection, Detroit proposed what is now often referred to as the "grand bargain," which involved creating a corporation that paid $816 million for the entire art collection provided that the amount paid was earmarked for pension holders in Detroit. The deal resulted in realizing two goals: keeping the art collection in Detroit and protecting pensioners who faced a huge loss in the wake of the bankruptcy. Critics of the grand bargain claim …

Chapter 11 Shapeshifters, Lindsey Simon

Scholarly Works

Logic and equity would seem to demand that when administrative agencies are creditors to a bankrupt debtor, they should have the same status as other creditors. But a creditor agency retains its regulatory authority over the debtor, permitting it to continue with agency business such as conducting enforcement proceedings and awarding licenses. As a result, though bankruptcy law and policy both strongly support equal distribution of the estate, administrative agencies have been able to circumvent these goals through the use of “shapeshifting” behaviors. This Article evaluates two dangerous shapeshifting scenarios:

(1) where the agency avoids the limitations of creditor status …

Why Bias Challenges To Administrative Adjudication Should Succeed, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

How much confidence would you have in a judge whom your opponent hired, can pay bonuses to, and can seek to discipline or remove? I recently argued that numerous administrative adjudicators very likely suffer from an unconstitutional appearance of partiality because the agencies that are often parties in administrative hearings can hire, pay bonuses to, discipline, and remove these adjudicators.

In this Article for the Missouri Law Review’s Symposium on A Future Without the Administrative State?, I contend that challenges to adjudicators’ appearance of partiality are well positioned to be part of the new wave of structural challenges to the …

Beyond Absurd: Jim Thorpe And A Proposed Taxonomy For The Absurdity Doctrine, Hillel Y. Levin, Joshua M. Segal, Keisha N. Stanford

Scholarly Works

In light of the Third Circuit's recent decision interpreting the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, this Article argues that the Supreme Court must clarify the Absurdity Doctrine of statutory interpretation. The Article offers a framework for doing so.

Books Received, Georgia Journal Of International And Comparative Law

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Due Process Vs. Administrative Law, Kent H. Barnett

Popular Media

This article by Professor Kent Barnett was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 16, 2015. It discusses the Securities and Exchange Commission recently coming under fire for pressuring its in-house administrative-law judges to rule in its favor during agency enforcement proceedings.

Administration Of Import Trade Statutes: Possibilities For Harmonizing The Investigative Techniques And Standards Of The International Trade Commission, Edward R. Easton

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Export Administration Act's Technical Data Regulations: Do They Violate The First Amendment?, Kenneth Kalivoda

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Foreign Direct Investment In The United States: Disclosure Regulations, Diane E. Mcnamara

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Codifying Chevmore, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

This Article considers the significance and promise of Congress’s unprecedented codification of the well-known Chevron and Skidmore judicial-deference doctrines (to which I refer collectively as “Chevmore”). Congress did so in the Dodd-Frank Act by instructing courts to apply the Skidmore deference factors when reviewing certain agency-preemption decisions and by referring to Chevron throughout.

This codification is meaningful because it informs the delegation theory that undergirds Chevmore (i.e., that Congress intends to delegate interpretive primacy over statutory interpretation to agencies under Chevron or courts under Skidmore). Scholars and at least three Supreme Court Justices have decried the judicial inquiry into congressional …

The Dean Rusk Award 1984-1985: The 1984 "Country Of Origin" Regulations For Textile Imports: Illegal Administrative Action Under Domestic And International Law?, David Stepp

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The United States Antiboycott Law And Other Export Controls, Cecil Hunt

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.