Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Chevron (3)
- Deference (3)
- Rulemaking (3)
- Judicial review (2)
- Skidmore (2)
-
- Agencies (1)
- Agency (1)
- Allegheny-Ludlum (1)
- Dodd-Frank (1)
- Financial Crisis of 2008 (1)
- Florida East Coast (1)
- JOBS Act (1)
- Major questions (1)
- Mead (1)
- National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (1)
- Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (1)
- Regulation (1)
- Sarbanes-Oxley (1)
- Securities law (1)
- Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980 (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Step zero (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Chevron In The Circuit Courts: The Codebook Appendix, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Chevron In The Circuit Courts: The Codebook Appendix, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Scholarly Works
For our empirical study on the use of Chevron deference in the federal courts of appeals, we utilized the following Codebook. This Codebook draws substantially from the codebook appended to William Eskridge and Lauren Baer's pathbreaking study of administrative law's deference doctrines at the Supreme Court. Our research assistants and we followed the instructions below when coding judicial decisions. To address questions as they arose and to ensure consistent coding, we maintained close contact with each other and our research assistants throughout the project and clarified the Codebook to address additional issues. Further details concerning our methodology (and its limitations) …
Looking More Closely At The Platypus Of Formal Rulemaking, Kent H. Barnett
Looking More Closely At The Platypus Of Formal Rulemaking, Kent H. Barnett
Popular Media
Professor Kent Barnett argues that the oft-criticized formal rulemaking process has virtues in proper settings.
How The Supreme Court Derailed Formal Rulemaking, Kent H. Barnett
How The Supreme Court Derailed Formal Rulemaking, Kent H. Barnett
Scholarly Works
Based on archival research, this Essay explores the untold story of how the Supreme Court in the 1970s largely ended “formal” trial-like rulemaking by federal agencies in two railway cases. In the first, nearly forgotten decision, United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp., the Court held sua sponte that an agency was not required to use formal rulemaking, despite its significant historical provenance. That unpersuasive decision all but decided the second, better-known decision, United States v. Florida East Coast Railway, the following term. In response to both decisions, agencies abandoned formal rulemaking—one of only four broad categories of agency action—and policymakers …
Dictation And Delegation In Securities Regulation, Usha Rodrigues
Dictation And Delegation In Securities Regulation, Usha Rodrigues
Scholarly Works
When Congress undertakes major financial reform, either it dictates the precise contours of the law itself or it delegates the bulk of the rulemaking to an administrative agency. This choice has critical consequences. Making the law self-executing in federal legislation is swift, not subject to administrative tinkering, and less vulnerable than rulemaking to judicial second-guessing. Agency action is, in contrast, deliberate, subject to ongoing bureaucratic fiddling and more vulnerable than statutes to judicial challenge.
This Article offers the first empirical analysis of the extent of congressional delegation in securities law from 1970 to the present day, examining nine pieces of …
Short-Circuiting The New Major Questions Doctrine, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Short-Circuiting The New Major Questions Doctrine, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Scholarly Works
In Minor Courts, Major Questions, Michael Coenen and Seth Davis advance perhaps the most provocative proposal to date to address the new major questions doctrine articulated in King v. Burwell. They argue that the Supreme Court alone should identify “major questions” that deprive agencies of interpretive primacy, prohibiting the doctrine’s use in the lower courts. Although we agree that the Court provided little guidance about the doctrine’s scope in King v. Burwell, we are unpersuaded that the solution to this lack of guidance is to limit its doctrinal development to one court that hears fewer than eighty cases per year. …
Chevron In The Circuit Courts, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Chevron In The Circuit Courts, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker
Scholarly Works
This Article presents findings from the most comprehensive empirical study to date on how the federal courts of appeals have applied Chevron deference—the doctrine under which courts defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers. Based on 1,558 agency interpretations the circuit courts reviewed from 2003 through 2013 (where they cited Chevron), we found that the circuit courts overall upheld 71% of interpretations and applied Chevron deference 77% of the time. But there was nearly a twenty-five-percentage-point difference in agency-win rates when the circuit courts applied Chevron deference than when they did not. Among …