Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Administrative law (3)
- Abortion Law (1)
- Accountability (1)
- Acts of Congress (1)
- Administrative agencies (1)
-
- Affirmative disclosure (1)
- Agency adjudication (1)
- Agency independence (1)
- Chevron (1)
- Church and State (1)
- Church of Latter Day Saints (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Davis v. Beason (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Employment Division v. Smith (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- FOIA (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Free Exercise Clause (1)
- Freedom of Information Act (1)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (1)
- Government regulation (1)
- Haaland v. Brackeen (1)
- Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (1)
- Internal administrative law (1)
- Judicial deference (1)
- Judicial interpretation (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reynolds Revisited: The Original Meaning Of Reynolds V. United States And Free Exercise After Fulton, Clark B. Lombardi
Reynolds Revisited: The Original Meaning Of Reynolds V. United States And Free Exercise After Fulton, Clark B. Lombardi
Articles
This Article calls for a profound reevaluation of the stories that are being told today about the Supreme Court’s free exercise jurisprudence starting with the Court’s seminal 1879 decision in Reynolds v. United States and proceeding up to the present day. Scholars and judges today agree that the Supreme Court in Reynolds interpreted the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to protect only religious belief and not religiously motivated action. All casebooks today embrace this interpretation of the case, and the Supreme Court has regularly endorsed it over the past twenty years, most recently in 2022. However, this Article …
Enhancing Public Access To Agency Law, Bernard Bell, Cary Coglianese, Michael Herz, Margaret Kwoka, Orly Lobel
Enhancing Public Access To Agency Law, Bernard Bell, Cary Coglianese, Michael Herz, Margaret Kwoka, Orly Lobel
Articles
A just, democratic society governed by the rule of law requires that the law be available, not hidden. This principle extends to legal materials produced by administrative agencies, all of which should be made widely accessible to the public. Federal agencies in the United States do disclose online many legal documents—sometimes voluntarily, sometimes in compliance with statutory requirements. But the scope and consistency of these disclosures leaves considerable room for improvement. After conducting a year-long study for the Administrative Conference of the United States, we identified seventeen possible statutory amendments that would improve proactive online disclosure of agency legal materials. …
Legislating Courts, Michael C. Pollack
Federal Indian Law As Method, Matthew L. M. Fletcher
Federal Indian Law As Method, Matthew L. M. Fletcher
Articles
Morton v. Mancari is well-known in Indian law circles as a foundation for the tribal self-determination era, which is generally understood to have begun in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The case involved an Act of Congress that required the federal “Indian Office” (now called the Bureau of Indian Affairs) to grant preference in employment to “Indians.” The case is typically understood as the basis for analyzing how federal statutes that apply exclusively to Indian people do not implicate the anti-discrimination principles of the United States Constitution. This understanding of the case, while correct, is too narrow.
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.
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 …
The New Gender Panic In Sport: Why State Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are Unconstitutional, Deborah Brake
The New Gender Panic In Sport: Why State Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are Unconstitutional, Deborah Brake
Articles
The scope and pace of legislative activity targeting transgender individuals is nothing short of a gender panic. From restrictions on medical care to the regulation of library books and the use of pronouns in schools, attacks on the transgender community have reached crisis proportions. A growing number of families with transgender children are being forced to leave their states of residence to keep their children healthy and their families safe and intact. The breadth and pace of these developments is striking. Although the anti-transgender backlash now extends broadly into health and family governance, sport was one of the first settings—the …
Dobbs And Democracy, Melissa Murray, Katherine A. Shaw
Dobbs And Democracy, Melissa Murray, Katherine A. Shaw
Articles
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito justified the decision to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey with an appeal to democracy. He insisted that it was “time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” This invocation of democracy had undeniable rhetorical power: it allowed the Dobbs majority to lay waste to decades’ worth of precedent, while rebutting charges of judicial imperialism and purporting to restore the people’s voices. This Article interrogates Dobbs’s claim to vindicate principles of democracy, examining both the intellectual pedigree …