Law Commons^™

Reconciling Chevron, Mead, And The Review Of Agency Discretion: Source Of Law And The Standards Of Judicial Review, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Although the Supreme Court's watershed decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. has been understood by many as defining the framework for judicial review of agency legal determinations, there have been longstanding questions about the application of the standards for reviewing administrative action. These questions have become more troublesome following the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in United States v. Mead Corp. Mead established that Chevron review only applies when defined requirements are met and held that so-called Skidmore deference applies when Chevron deference does not apply. Surveying the aftermath of Mead and its effect on the …

Leveling The Deference Playing Field, Kathryn E. Kovacs

Kathryn E. Kovacs

Judicial deference to federal agency expertise is appropriate. What is not appropriate is the judicial tendency to give the military more deference than other agencies not only in cases that directly implicate military expertise, but also in administrative law cases raising constitutional, environmental, and employment issues. This article argues that the military should receive no greater deference than other agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA established a single standard of judicial review for all agencies. Recent empirical studies have confirmed, however, what the case law has long revealed: that courts often apply different standards of review to different …

Leveling The Deference Playing Field, Kathryn E. Kovacs

Kathryn E. Kovacs

Judicial deference to federal agency expertise is appropriate. What is not appropriate is the judicial tendency to give the military more deference than other agencies not only in cases that directly implicate military expertise, but also in administrative law cases raising constitutional, environmental, and employment issues. This article argues that the military should receive no greater deference than other agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA established a single standard of judicial review for all agencies. Recent empirical studies have confirmed, however, what the case law has long revealed: that courts often apply different standards of review to different …

Do Treasury And The Irs Have To Explain Their Choices?, Steve R. Johnson

Scholarly Publications

The validity of tax regulations has been challenged by taxpayers almost as long as there have been tax regulations. Now, however, we are in a period of unusually high activity on this front. The Supreme Court recently upheld the validity of a regulation under section 3121 in Mayo Foundation for Medical Ed. and Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011); many cases are testing the validity of regulations extending the six-year statute of limitations under section 6501(e) to basis overstatements (or, as the Service would put it, clarifying the law in this regard); and many cases are …

Toward Adequacy: Sense And Statutory Construction In The Judicial Review Provisions Of The Apa, Sarah L. Olson

Sarah L Olson

Each year, hundreds of people, companies, organizations, and associations sue the federal government for injuries they have suffered at the hands of federal agencies. Such suits are often brought under the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which Congress enacted expressly to allow broad access to courts in an age of increasing administrative agency action. By the terms of the APA itself, all final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court is reviewable under the APA.

But the very language meant to welcome such suits into court also acts as a …

Substance, Procedure, And The Divided Patent Power, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

The Patent Office has the power to issue rules that “shall govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office,” 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2), but not the power to issue substantive rules. It has been this way since 1870, when Congress first granted the Office this regulatory power, in nearly these same words. Just how broad is this grant? How should a reviewing court determine whether a challenged Patent Office rule is procedural (and thus valid) or substantive (and thus invalid)? It is remarkable that in 2010, 140 years after Congress gave the Patent Office this power, the proper sorting standard …

On The Difficulties Of Generalization – Pcaob In The Footsteps Of Myers, Humphrey’S Executor, Morrison And Freytag, Peter L. Strauss

Faculty Scholarship

In considering what to write for this welcome occasion, I was struck by a certain resonance among Paul's scholarship – at least that of which I was first aware, and which I have often used to impress on students the problems of due process analysis – the important post he now holds, and a story our joint mentor, Walter Gellhorn, liked to tell on himself. In the wake of the Supreme Court's paradigm-shifting opinion in Goldberg v. Kelly, with its confident pronouncement of eight procedural elements that, it reasoned, minimal due process must always require of administrative procedures, Paul made …

Super Deference, The Science Obsession, And Judicial Review As Translation Of Agency Science, Emily Hammond Meazell

Michigan Law Review

This Article explores what happens to longstanding remedies for past racial discrimination as conditions change. It shows that Congress and the Supreme Court have responded quite differently to changed conditions when they evaluate such remedies. Congress has generally opted to stay the course, while the Court has been more inclined to view change as cause to terminate a remedy. The Article argues that these very different responses share a defining flaw, namely, they treat existing remedies as fixed until they are terminated. As a result, remedies are either scrapped prematurely or left stagnant despite dramatically changed conditions. The Article seeks …