Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Self-Delegation False Alarm: Analyzing Auer Deference’S Effect On Agency Rules, Daniel E. Walters
The Self-Delegation False Alarm: Analyzing Auer Deference’S Effect On Agency Rules, Daniel E. Walters
Faculty Scholarship
Auer deference holds that reviewing courts should defer to agencies when the latter interpret their own preexisting regulations. This doctrine relieves pressure on agencies to undergo costly notice-and-comment rulemaking each time interpretation of existing regulations is necessary. But according to some leading scholars and jurists, the doctrine actually encourages agencies to promulgate vague rules in the first instance, augmenting agency power and violating core separation of powers norms in the process. The claim that Auer perversely encourages agencies to “self-delegate”—that is, to create vague rules that can later be informally interpreted by agencies with latitude due to judicial deference—has helped …
The Field Of Invention, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
The Field Of Invention, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Faculty Scholarship
Federal courts can ill afford to ignore, assume, or improvise a pervasively important administrative power that the Patent Office exercises regularly and effectively: technology classification. This agency-court asymmetry has persisted for decades but has now become unmanageably problematic for two related reasons. First, Supreme Court guidance, patent reform legislation, and academic commentary have all broadly rejected long-standing patent exceptionalism in administrative law, while making the Patent Office a major substitute for federal courts in resolving patent disputes. Still, patent doctrine has been slow to correct, particularly in judicial deference to agency action. Second, criticisms of the patent system are highly …
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
This Article aims to expand the debate over the proper standard of review that applies in state prisoner habeas corpus actions in federal court. To date, this debate has centered on whether federal habeas courts should defer to the state court's resolution of federal legal questions, or whether federal habeas courts should assess and apply federal law de novo. However, in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the Supreme Court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes a deferential standard of review that precludes a federal habeas court from granting relief based simply on its …