Law Commons^™

The Odyssey Of Cass Sunstein, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

I am delighted to participate in this symposium honoring and criticizing the scholarship of Cass Sunstein. Let me begin by stating something so obvious that we typically don't say it: Cass is the most remarkably thoughtful, constructive, and productive scholar of his (and my) generation, the generation of scholars born around the time that Brown v. Board of Education1 was decided. No one has addressed a wider range of important subjects or made a more substantial contribution to our understanding of law. I have been fruitfully engaging with his scholarship from my first article 2 to my two recent books.3 …

No Two-Stepping In The Laboratories: State Deference Standards And Their Implications For Improving Chevron Doctrine, Michael Pappas

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the deference standards that the various states apply to agency statutory interpretation and analyzes the implications for the federal Chevron doctrine. First, the article surveys state standards for reviewing agencies' statutory interpretation, finding that none of the state standards exactly follows the federal Chevron test but that state standards fall into one of four categories ranging from "strong deference" to "de novo with deference discouraged." The article then examines four particular state standards in depth, discovering that states tend to use the same methods, tools, and processes for statutory interpretation despite the different announced degrees of deference. …

Executive Preemption, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Preemption of state regulatory authority by national law is the central federalism issue of our time. Most analysis of this issue has focused on the preemptive effects of federal statutes. But as Justice White observed in INS v. Chadha,“[f]or some time, the sheer amount of law . . . made by the [administrative] agencies has far outnumbered the lawmaking engaged in by Congress through the traditional process.” Whether one views this development as a “bloodless constitutional revolution” or as a necessary “renovation” of the constitutional structure in response to the complexity of modern society, the advent of the administrative state …

Administrative Law Agonistes, Mathew D. Mccubbins, Roger Noll, Barry R. Weingast, Daniel B. Rodriguez

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Construing The National Labor Relations Act The Nlrb And Method Of Statutory Construction, Daniel P. O'Gorman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Other Delegate: Judicially Administered Statutes And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

The nondelegation doctrine is the subject of a vast and everexpanding body of scholarship. But nondelegation literature, like nondelegation law, focuses almost exclusively on delegations of power to administrative agencies. It ignores Congress's other delegate-the federal judiciary.

This Article brings courts into the delegation picture. It demonstrates that, just as agencies exercise a lawmaking function when they fill in the gaps left by broad statutory delegations of power, so too do courts. The nondelegation doctrine purports to limit the amount of lawmaking authority Congress can cede to another institution without violating the separation of powers. Although typically considered only with …

Relational Duties, Regulatory Duties, And The Widening Gap Between Individual Health Law And Collective Health Policy, William M. Sage

Faculty Scholarship

In response to a prominent editorial by Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, Professor Sage explains how a relational approach has impeded health law's ability to effectively govern the American health care system, arguing that health law has traditionally focused on the physician-patient encounter rather than on achieving collective objectives (which he calls regulatory duties). Professor Sage traces health law's relational emphasis to private and public law, professional ethics and bioethics, budgetary and general politics, and health care consumerism. He concludes that four areas of health policy-conflicts of interest in biomedical research, managed care and pay-for-performance, health care transparency and education, and …

In Re Annandale And The Disconnections Between Minnesota And Federal Agency Deference Doctrine, Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg

Faculty Scholarship

This article explores each of these differences between Annandale’s view of deference and comparable federal authority. Part II begins the discussion with an explanation of the somewhat complicated legal and factual background that gave rise to Annandale’s unusually thorny agency deference issues. This section includes an extended discussion of the Annandale administrative record and the reasoning of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court. Part III then critically analyzes the Annandale court’s claims to have acted consistently with federal agency deference case law in each of the three areas discussed above. Part IV concludes with some post-Annandale developments …

Administrative Law As The New Federalism, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Despite the recognized impact that the national administrative state has had on the federal system, the relationship between federalism and administrative law remains strangely inchoate and unanalyzed. Recent Supreme Court case law suggests that the Court is increasingly focused on this relationship and is using administrative law to address federalism concerns even as it refuses to curb Congress's regulatory authority on constitutional grounds. This Article explores how administrative law may be becoming the new federalism and assesses how well-adapted administrative law is to performing this role. It argues that administrative law has important federalism-reinforcing features and represents a critical approach …

Preemption And Institutional Choice, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Public law scholarship is increasingly turning from questions about the content of law to questions about which institution should determine the content of the law – that is, to "deciding who decides." Implicit in this turn is the understanding that public law – including broadly not just constitutional law, but also administrative law and statutory interpretation – consists of norms that are contestable and changing. In a world of normative flux, the question naturally occurs: Who should be responsible for "say[ing] what the law is?" The answer traditionally given by American legal academics – the federal courts, and especially the …

Overseers Or "The Deciders" – The Courts In Administrative Law, Peter L. Strauss

Faculty Scholarship

For the second time in a short period, Professors Miles and Sunstein have brought powerful tools of statistical analysis and diligent coding of circuit court of appeals opinions together to demonstrate what the Realists long ago taught us to suspect, that significant elements of judging can be explained in terms of the jurist's political world view – that the tension between law and politics is alive in judicial work as elsewhere and that it is only an aspiration to seek a world of laws and not of men. Elements of their work, though, appear as if in criticism of contemporary …

Technological Due Process, Danielle K. Citron

Faculty Scholarship

Distinct and complementary procedures for adjudications and rulemaking lie at the heart of twentieth-century administrative law. Due process required agencies to provide individuals notice and an opportunity to be heard. Agencies could foreclose policy issues that individuals might otherwise raise in adjudications through public rulemaking. One system allowed focused advocacy; the other featured broad participation. Each procedural regime compensated for the normative limits of the other. Both depended on clear statements of reason.

The dichotomy between these procedural regimes has become outmoded. This century's automated decision-making systems collapse individual adjudications into rulemaking while adhering to the procedural safeguards of neither. …

Reincarnating The 'Major Questions' Exception To Chevron Deference As A Doctrine Of Non-Interference (Or Why Massachusetts V. Epa Got It Wrong), Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

In a pair of cases declaring a major questions exception to Chevron deference, the Supreme Court held that executive agencies may not implement major policy changes without explicit authorization from Congress. But in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court unceremoniously killed its major questions rule, requiring the EPA to implement one such major policy change. Because the scholarly literature to date has failed to discern a worthy justification for the major questions rule, the academy might be tempted to celebrate the rule's death. This Article, how-ever, argues that the rule ought to be mourned and, indeed, reincarnated. It offers a non-interference …

The Administrative State, Front And Center: Studying Law And Administration In Postwar America, Reuel E. Schiller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.