Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Uncertain Future Of Administrative Law, Jeremy K. Kessler, Charles F. Sabel
The Uncertain Future Of Administrative Law, Jeremy K. Kessler, Charles F. Sabel
Faculty Scholarship
A volatile series of presidential transitions has only intensified the century-long conflict between progressive defenders and conservative critics of the administrative state. Yet neither side has adequately confronted the fact that the growth of uncertainty and the corresponding spread of guidance – a kind of provisional “rule” that invites its own revision – mark a break in the development of the administrative state as significant as the rise of notice-and-comment rulemaking in the 1960s and 1970s. Whereas rulemaking corrected social shortsightedness by enlisting science in the service of lawful administration, guidance acknowledges that both science and law are in need …
Re-Reading Chevron, Thomas W. Merrill
Re-Reading Chevron, Thomas W. Merrill
Faculty Scholarship
Though increasingly disfavored by the Supreme Court, Chevron remains central to administrative law doctrine. This Article suggests a way for the Court to reformulate the Chevron doctrine without overruling the Chevron decision. Through careful attention to the language of Chevron itself, the Court can honor the decision’s underlying value of harnessing comparative institutional advantage in judicial review, while setting aside a highly selective reading that unduly narrows judicial review. This re-reading would put the Chevron doctrine – and with it, an entire branch of administrative law – on firmer footing.
Arguing About The Jus Ad Bellum, Monica Hakimi
Arguing About The Jus Ad Bellum, Monica Hakimi
Faculty Scholarship
Quite a bit of research suggests that international law’s argumentative practice has value insofar as it leads to or affirms some kind of normative settlement. This chapter uses the argumentative practice in the jus ad bellum to counter that view. The chapter’s central claim is that arguments about the jus ad bellum are valuable, even when they do not lead to normative settlement and the law’s content on the issue in dispute remains contested. The reason they are valuable is that they promote certain values that are associated with the rule of law.