Law Commons^™

Barring Judicial Review, Laura E. Dolbow -- Sharswood Fellow

Vanderbilt Law Review

Whether judicial review is available is one of the most hotly contested issues in administrative law. Recently, laws that prohibit judicial review have sparked debate in the Medicare, immigration, and patent contexts. These debates are continuing in challenges to the recently created Medicare price negotiation program. Yet despite debates about the removal of judicial review, little is known about how often, and in what contexts, Congress has expressly precluded review. This Article provides new insights about express preclusion by conducting an empirical study of the U.S. Code. It creates an original dataset of laws that expressly preclude judicial review of …

The Future Of Supreme Court Reform, Ganesh Sitaraman, Daniel Epps

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

For a brief moment in the fall of 2020, structural reform of the Supreme Court seemed like a tangible possibility. After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September, some prominent Democratic politicians and liberal commentators warmed to the idea of expanding the Court to respond to Republicans’ rush to confirm a nominee before the election, despite their refusal four years prior to confirm Judge Merrick Garland on the ground that it was an election year. Though Democratic candidate Joe Biden won the Presidency in November, Democrats lost seats in the House and have a majority in the Senate …

Beyond Samuel Moyn's Countermajoritarian Difficulty As A Model Of Global Judicial Review, James T. Gathii

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article responds to Samuel Moyn's critique of judicial review and his endorsement of judicial modesty as an alternative. By invoking the countermajoritarian difficulty, Moyn argues that judicial overreach has become an unwelcome global phenomenon that should be reexamined and curbed. I reject Moyn's claim that this kind of judicial modesty should define the role of courts for all time. By applying the countermajoritarian difficulty beyond its United States origins, Moyn assumes it is an unproblematic baseline against which to measure the role of courts globally. Moyn's vision says nothing about when it would be appropriate for courts to rule …

Delaware's Retreat, Randall Thomas, James D. Cox

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The 1980’s is appropriately considered the Golden Age of Delaware corporate law. Within that era, the Delaware courts won international attention by not just erecting the legal pillars that frame today’s corporate governance discourse but by interjecting a fresh perspective on the rights of owners and the prerogatives of managers. Four decisions stand out within a melodious chorus of great decisions of that era - Revlon , Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holding, Inc., Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., and Blasius Industries, Inc. v. Atlas Corporation. We refer collectively to the decisions as the Golden …

Introduction: Is The Supreme Court Failing At Its Job, Or Are We Failing At Ours?, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is a pleasure and a privilege to write an introduction to this Symposium celebrating Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's important new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time and a frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. If he thinks there is a case to be made against the Court, we should all take it very seriously indeed. Chemerinsky's thesis may be stated in a few sentences. The primary role of the Supreme Court, in his view, is to "protect the rights of minorities who cannot rely on the political …

Thinking About The Supreme Court's Successes And Failures, Erwin Chemerinsky

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court often has failed at its most important tasks and at the most important times. I set out this thesis at the beginning the book:

To be clear, I am not saying that the Supreme Court has failed at these crucial tasks every time. Making a case against the Supreme Court does not require taking such an extreme position. I also will talk about areas where the Court has succeeded in protecting minorities and in enforcing the limits of the Constitution. My claim is that the Court has often failed where and when it has been most needed. …

The Interpretive Dimension Of Seminole Rock, Kevin M. Stack

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A lively debate has emerged over the deferential standard of review courts apply when reviewing an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. That standard, traditionally associated with Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. and now more frequently attributed to Auer v. Robbins, states that a court must accept an agency's interpretation of its own regulations unless the interpretation is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." This Article argues that a court's choice of method for interpreting regulations” including how it determines which agency interpretations are inconsistent with the regulation ” may be just as important, if not more …

Tentative Interpretations: The Abracadabra Of Administrative Rulemaking And The End Of 'Alaska Hunters', Matthew P. Downer

Vanderbilt Law Review

Agency flexibility is a battlefield. When circumstances change or a new regime takes power, federal agencies often adjust their settled regulations to reflect new realities. There is a persistent struggle, however, between preserving this flexibility and protecting those who relied upon the previous regulations.' When an agency changes course, regulated entities must comply, often with little warning and at great expense. In 1946, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") to balance these interests by restricting when and how agencies can promulgate and change regulations.

Unsurprisingly, the APA did not achieve a lasting d6tente. Instead, it merely created new fronts …

Multiple-Agency Delegations & One-Agency Chevron, William Weaver

Vanderbilt Law Review

Congress frequently delegates to agencies, and a host of Supreme Court decisions have articulated tests for determining what level of deference courts should give to agency interpretations of their statutory directives. Courts have historically undertaken these analyses in the context of a single agency. Congressional authorization of joint rulemaking authority is more complicated, however, and the traditional frameworks for review are inadequate.

When Congress delegates authority to multiple agencies, courts should review the agencies' rules with heightened deference. The traditional framework for judicial review of agency rules is ill equipped when rules are promulgated by multiple coordinated agencies. The prevalence …

Judicial Review For Enemy Fighters: The Court's Fateful Turn In "Ex Parte Quirin", The Nazi Saboteur Case, Andrew Kent

Vanderbilt Law Review

The last decade has seen intense disputes about whether alleged terrorists captured during the nontraditional post- 9/11 conflict with al Qaeda and affiliated groups may use habeas corpus to challenge their military detention or military trials. It is time to take a step back from 9/11 and begin to evaluate the enemy combatant legal regime on a broader, more systemic basis, and to understand its application to future conflicts. A leading precedent ripe for reconsideration is Ex parte Quirin, a World War II-era case in which the Supreme Court held that saboteurs admittedly employed by an enemy nation's military had …

A Pox On Both Your Houses, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

As Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins celebrates its 75th anniversary, it is becoming more apparent that it is on a collision course with itself. The Court keeps trying – and failing – to sort out the tensions within the Erie doctrine and between it and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court’s latest Erie decision, Shady Grove, was yet another attempt to separate substance from procedure and navigate the strait between the Rules of Decision Act and the Rules Enabling Act. It was a disaster, in large part because of the internal incoherence of the Erie doctrine itself and …

Of Dialogue--And Democracy--In Administrative Law, Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Linda Cohen and Matthew Spitzer's study, "The Government Litigant Advantage," sheds important light on how the Solicitor General's litigation behavior may impact the Supreme Court's decision making agenda and outcomes for regulatory and administrative law cases. By emphasizing how the Solicitor General affects cases that the Supreme Court decides, Cohen and Spitzer's findings confirm that administrative law's emphasis on lower appellate court decisions is not misplaced. Some say that D.C. Circuit cases carry equal-if not more-precedential weight than Supreme Court decisions in resolving administrative law issues. Cohen and Spitzer use positive political theory to provide a novel explanation for some …

Judicial Review Under A British War Powers Act, David Jenkins

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article considers how U.K courts might exercise review under a hypothetical British "war powers act," in the event that the current Labour Government or an incoming Tory one responds to calls to reform the Royal War Prerogative and Parliament passes such a statute. The Article undertakes a comparative study, analyzing how U.S. courts apply the political question doctrine in war powers cases. It suggests that they apply the doctrine in a way that assesses the justiciability of the particular subject matter of a case, thereby supporting deference to the political branches in most war powers cases without foreclosing review …

The Reviewability Of The President's Statutory Powers, Kevin M. Stack

Vanderbilt Law Review

From the Supreme Court's earliest days, it has reviewed some, but not all, challenges to the President's claims that a statute authorized his action. Not surprisingly, the Court's decisions granting review of the President's assertions of statutory powers have garnered more attention than its denials of review. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison1 and Little v. Barreme,2 gaining momentum in the twentieth century with the extensive discussion of statutory authority in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer3 and Dames & Moore v. Regan,4 and accelerating in recent years with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,5 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,6 and Medellin v. Texas,7 the …

There Were Great Men Before Agamemnon, William R. Casto

Vanderbilt Law Review

John Marshall is the Agamemnon of Supreme Court history. He is universally considered the Court's greatest Justice, and rightly so. But there were great Justices before Marshall. One of those great Justices was James Iredell. No Justice in the Court's history has provided a more detailed or sophisticated explanation and justification of the doctrine of judicial review. Iredell needs a bard, and this Essay is my ode to his memory.

The Reviewability Of The President's Statutory Powers, Kevin M. Stack

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article argues that longstanding doctrines that exclude judicial review of the determinations or findings the President makes as conditions for invoking statutory powers should be replaced. These doctrines are inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional commitment to reviewing whether federal officials act with legal authorization. Where a statute grants power conditioned upon an official making a determination that certain conditions obtain - as statutes that grant power to the President often do - review of whether that power is validly exercised requires review of the determinations the official makes to invoke the power. Review of those determinations is commonplace with …

Reclaiming The Legal Fiction Of Congressional Delegation, Lisa Schultz Bressman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretations is based on a legal fiction – namely, that Congress intends to delegate interpretive authority to agencies. Critics argue that the fiction is false because Congress is unlikely to think about the delegation of interpretive authority at all, or in the way that the Court imagines. They also contend that the fiction is fraudulent because the Court does actually care about whether Congress intends to delegate interpretive authority in any particular instance, but applies a presumption triggered by statutory ambiguity or a particularized analysis involving factors unrelated to congressional delegation. In …

The Court, The Constitution, And The History Of Ideas, Scott D. Gerber

Vanderbilt Law Review

Several of the nation's most influential constitutional law scholars have been arguing for the better part of a decade that judicial review should be sharply limited, or eliminated altogether. The list includes such prominent thinkers as Professor Mark V. Tushnet of Harvard Law School, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, and Dean Larry D. Kramer of Stanford Law School. In place of the doctrine made famous by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, these leading voices of the legal academy call for "popular constitutionalism": a constitutional law that is defined outside of the …

The Populist Safeguards Of Federalism, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Extant legal scholarship often portrays citizens as the catalysts of federalization. Scholars say that citizens pressure Congress to impose their morals on people living in other states, to trump home-state laws with which they disagree, or to shift the costs of regulatory programs onto out-of-state taxpayers, all to the demise of states' rights. Since Congress (usually) gives citizens what they want, scholars insist the courts must step in to protect states from federal encroachments. By contrast, this Article proposes a new theory of the populist safeguards of federalism. It develops two distinct but mutually reinforcing reasons why populist demands on …

Deference And Democracy, Lisa Schultz Bressman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In "Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.", the Supreme Court famously held that judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes is appropriate largely because the executive branch is politically accountable for those policy choices. In recent cases, the Court has not displayed unwavering commitment to this decision or its principle of political accountability. This Article explores "Gonzales v. Oregon" as well as an earlier case, "FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.", in which the administrations possessed strong claims of accountability yet the Court did not defer to the agency determinations. In both, the Court justified its …

How "Mead" Has Muddled Judicial Review Of Agency Action, Lisa S. Bressman

Vanderbilt Law Review

When the Supreme Court decided United States v. Mead Corp. four years ago, Justice Scalia predicted that judicial review of agency action would devolve into chaos. This Article puts that prediction to the test by examining the court of appeals decisions applying the decision. Justice Scalia actually understated the effect of Mead. This Article suggests a remedy for the mess.

In Mead, the Court held that an agency is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC only if Congress has delegated to that agency the authority to issue interpretations that carry the force of law, and the agency …

The Statutory President, Kevin M. Stack

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

American public law has no answer to the question of how a court should evaluate the president's assertion of statutory authority. In this Article, I develop an answer by making two arguments. First, the same framework of judicial review should apply to claims of statutory authority made by the president and federal administrative agencies. This argument rejects the position that the president's constitutional powers should shape the question of statutory interpretation presented when the president claims that a statute authorizes his actions. Once statutory review is separated from consideration of the president's constitutional powers, the courts should insist, as they …

Moving Public Law Out Of The Deference Trap In Regulated Industries, Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article argues that public law has fallen into what I call a deference trap in addressing conflicts in deregulated industries, such as telecommunications and electric power. The deference trap describes a judicial reluctance to intervene in disputes involving political institutions, such as regulatory agencies and states. By reassessing the deference trap across the legal doctrines that are effecting emerging telecommunications and electric power markets, public law can deliver much more for deregulated markets. The deference trap poses a particular cost as markets are deregulated, one that may not have been present during previous regulatory eras in which public and …

Political Bargaining And Judicial Intervention In Constitutional And Antitrust Federalism, Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Federal judicial deference to state and local regulation is at the center of contentious debates regarding the implementation of competition policy. This Article invokes a political process bargaining framework to develop a principled approach for addressing the appropriate level of judicial intervention under the dormant commerce clause and state action immunity from antitrust enforcement. Using illustrations from network industries, it is argued that, at core, these two independent doctrines share a common concern with political (not only market) failure by focusing on the incentives faced by powerful stakeholders in state and local lawmaking. More important, they share the common purpose …

Judicial Review Of Agency Inaction: An Arbitrariness Approach, Lisa Schultz Bressman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article contends that the current law governing judicial review of agency inaction, though consistent with the prevailing theory of agency legitimacy, is inconsistent with the founding principles of the administrative state. The Supreme Court's reluctance to allow judicial review of agency inaction reflects the popular view that agency decision-making should be subject foremost to the scrutiny of politically accountable officials. The difficulty is that even scholars who generally support this view of agency decision-making reject the Court's treatment of agency inaction. Yet these scholars have failed to appreciate the reason. The reason is that the founding principles of the …

The Problem With Arbitration Agreements, Stephen J. Choi

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Arbitration procedures today have become highly standardized. Institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and the American Arbitration Association Center for International Dispute Resolution (AAA) each have detailed provisions for administering arbitration proceedings (often involving parties of different nationalities). Parties entering into arbitration can expect to have limited discovery, a hearing, and the ability to bring attorneys to the proceedings. While typically providing less process than formal court proceedings, the standardized nature of arbitration can lead parties to view arbitration much like court proceedings--a fixed, pre-determined process to settle disputes. Thomas …

From Unwritten To Written: Transformation In The British Common-Law Constitution, David Jenkins

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article posits that the British Constitution is changing by incorporating written principles that restrain Parliament through judicial review. The Author asserts that this constitutional model has basis in the common law and the orthodox theories of Blackstone and Dicey. In addition, the "ultra vires" doctrine supports the model and provides a basis for judicial review of Parliament. As constitutions may accommodate written and unwritten elements of law, as well as various means of enforcement and change, the Author posits that constitutions are defined by how strongly they reflect underlying legal norms. With a shift in the rule of recognition …

There's No Place Like Home: The Availability Of Judicial Review Over Certification Decisions Invoking Federal Jurisdiction Under The Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act, Robert B. Mahini

Vanderbilt Law Review

During the latter half of the twentieth century, society's perception of juvenile delinquents changed dramatically.' Once fairly characterized as "immature kids who might get arrested for truancy, shoplifting or joy riding," juvenile offenders have recently earned reputations as vicious criminals regularly committing such serious offenses as robbery, rape, and murder.' This apparent trend toward increased violence has resulted in a "get tough" approach to federal juvenile justice policies.' Accordingly, Congress has expanded the federal government's ability to prosecute certain juvenile offenders by broadening the scope of federal jurisdiction.

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, for example, authorizes federal prosecution …

Naked Land Transfers And American Constitutional Development, Mark A. Graber

Vanderbilt Law Review

The constitutional prohibition on naked land transfers, laws granting to B property that belonged to A, played a far greater role in American constitutional development than is generally realized. The Marshall and Taney Courts heard numerous cases in which government officials were accused of expropriating private property, typically by legislative oversight rather than by deliberate intent. When resolving these cases, antebellum justices relied heavily on "certain great principles of justice" rather than on specific constitutional provisions. Supreme Court majorities on several occasions probably exercised the judicial power to declare federal laws unconstitutional. More frequently, Marshall and Taney Court decisions in …

Contracting For An Expanded Scope Of Judicial Review In Arbitration Agreements, Tom Cullinan

Vanderbilt Law Review

Arbitration is generally defined as a process in which parties voluntarily agree to submit a dispute to an impartial third person called an arbitrator,' who is often selected by the parties and is empowered to make a decision based on the evidence and the parties' arguments. Because of its contractual nature, arbitration claims a central role in settling today's commercial disputes. By structuring the agreement to fit their needs, parties can tailor the arbitration agreement to provide significant advantages over other forms of dispute resolution. For example, arbitration is generally faster, cheaper, and more private than litigation. The parties can …