Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Chevron And Stare Decisis, Kent Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Chevron And Stare Decisis, Kent Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Articles
This Term, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court will expressly consider whether to overrule Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.—a bedrock precedent in administrative law that a reviewing court must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers. In our contribution to this Chevron on Trial Symposium, we argue that the Court should decline this invitation because the pull of statutory stare decisis is too strong to overcome.
What Can State Medical Boards Do To Effectively Address Serious Ethical Violations?, Tristan Mcintosh, Elizabeth Pendo, Heidi A. Walsh, Kari A. Baldwin, Patricia King, Emily E. Anderson, Catherine V. Caldicott, Jeffrey D. Carter, Sandra H. Johnson, Katherine Matthews, William A. Norcross, Dana C. Shaffer, James M. Dubois
What Can State Medical Boards Do To Effectively Address Serious Ethical Violations?, Tristan Mcintosh, Elizabeth Pendo, Heidi A. Walsh, Kari A. Baldwin, Patricia King, Emily E. Anderson, Catherine V. Caldicott, Jeffrey D. Carter, Sandra H. Johnson, Katherine Matthews, William A. Norcross, Dana C. Shaffer, James M. Dubois
Articles
State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team’s larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians.
The Right To Remove In Agency Adjudication, Christopher J. Walker, David Zaring
The Right To Remove In Agency Adjudication, Christopher J. Walker, David Zaring
Articles
In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutional future of agency adjudication, especially in the context of agency enforcement actions and the imposition of civil penalties. If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit on any of its three independent reasons for unconstitutionality, agency enforcement and adjudication schemes across the federal regulatory state will be severely disrupted, in ways that are detrimental to both the regulator and the regulated. In this Essay, we propose a path forward: In certain circumstances, the regulated party should have a right to remove an enforcement action from an in-house agency adjudication …