Law Commons^™

Implied Consent In Administrative Adjudication, Grace Moore

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Article III of the Constitution mandates that judges exercising the federal judicial power receive life tenure and that their pay not be diminished. Nonetheless, certain forms of adjudication have always taken place outside of Article III—in state courts, military tribunals, territorial courts, and administrative tribunals. Administrative law judges, employed by various federal administrative agencies, decide thousands of cases each year. A vast majority of the cases they decide deal with public rights, which generally include claims involving federal statutory rights or cases in which the federal government is a party. With litigant consent, however, the Supreme Court has upheld administrative …

The Submerged Administrative State, Gabriel Scheffler, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The United States government is experiencing a reputation crisis: after decades of declining public trust, many Americans have lost confidence in the government’s capacity to perform its basic functions. While various explanations have been offered for this worrying trend, these existing accounts overlook a key factor: people are unfamiliar with the institutions that actually do most of the governing—administrative agencies—and they devalue what they cannot easily observe. The “submerged” nature of the administrative state is, we argue, a central reason for declining trust in government.

This Article shows that the administrative state is systematically submerged in two ways. First, administrative …

Enhancing Public Access To Agency Law, Bernard Bell, Cary Coglianese, Michael Herz, Margaret Kwoka, Orly Lobel

Articles

A just, democratic society governed by the rule of law requires that the law be available, not hidden. This principle extends to legal materials produced by administrative agencies, all of which should be made widely accessible to the public. Federal agencies in the United States do disclose online many legal documents—sometimes voluntarily, sometimes in compliance with statutory requirements. But the scope and consistency of these disclosures leaves considerable room for improvement. After conducting a year-long study for the Administrative Conference of the United States, we identified seventeen possible statutory amendments that would improve proactive online disclosure of agency legal materials. …

Enhancing Public Access To Agency Law, Cary Coglianese, Bernard W. Bell, Michael Herz, Margaret Kwoka, Orly Lobel

Articles

"A just, democratic society governed by the rule of law requires that the law be available, not hidden. This principle extends to legal materials produced by administrative agencies, all of which should be made widely accessible to the public. Federal agencies in the United States do disclose online many legal documents—sometimes voluntarily, sometimes in compliance with statutory requirements. But the scope and consistency of these disclosures leaves considerable room for improvement. After conducting a year-long study for the Administrative Conference of the United States, we identified seventeen possible statutory amendments that would improve proactive online disclosure of agency legal materials. …

Radical Administrative Law, Christopher S. Havasy Assistant Professor Of Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

The administrative state is under attack. Judges and scholars increasingly question why agencies should have such large powers to coerce citizens without adequate democratic accountability. Rather than refuting these critics, this Article accepts that in scrutinizing the massive powers that agencies hold over citizens, these critics have a point. However, their solution—to augment the powers of Congress or the President over agencies to instill indirect democratic accountability—is one step too quick. We should first examine whether direct democratic accountability of agencies by the citizenry is possible.

This Article excavates the nineteenth-century European intellectual history following the rise of the modern …

Overseeing The Administrative State, Jill Fisch

Articles

"In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court has reduced the regulatory power of the Administrative State. Pending cases offer vehicles for the Court to go still further. Although the Court’s skepticism of administrative agencies may be rooted in Constitutional principles or political expediency, this Article explores another possible explanation—a shift in the nature of agencies and their regulatory role. As Pritchard and Thompson detail in their important book, A HISTORY OF SECURITIES LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT, the Supreme Court was initially skeptical of agency power, jeopardizing Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)’s ambitious New Deal plan. The Court’s acceptance …

Agency Self-Funding In The Antinovelty Age, Zois Manaris

William & Mary Law Review Online

This Article demonstrates that CFSA's [Community Financial Services Association of American v. CFPB] introduction of antinovelty into the self-funding space, including its particular antinovelty approach, poses an existential threat to any and all agency self-funding. On its face, this may seem like something that will only worry the more functionalist or more liberal crowd—likely because so much of the recent discussion surrounding agency self-funding has revolved around the polarizing CFPB. But even those who might want the CFPB struck down and those who subscribe to the antinovelty rationale as a general matter (between those two camps there is surely significant …

An Unfair Method Of Rulemaking: An Application Of Constitutional Doctrines That Oppose The Ftc Rule Banning Non-Competition Agreements, Jared Yaggie

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Res Judicata And Multiple Disability Applications: Fulfilling The Praiseworthy Intentions Of The Fourth And Sixth Courts, Amber Mae Otto

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the United States, the application process to receive disability benefits through the Social Security Administration is often a tedious, multistep procedure. The process becomes even more complex if a claimant has filed multiple disability applications covering different time periods. In that circumstance, the question arises as to whether an administrative law judge hearing a claimant’s second application must make the same findings as the administrative law judge who heard the first application. In other words, how should res judicata function in the administrative law context when a claimant has filed for disability multiple times? Currently, circuits differ on this …

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 …

Chevron And Stare Decisis, Kent Barnett, Christopher J. Walker

Articles

This Term, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court will expressly consider whether to overrule Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.—a bedrock precedent in administrative law that a reviewing court must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers. In our contribution to this Chevron on Trial Symposium, we argue that the Court should decline this invitation because the pull of statutory stare decisis is too strong to overcome.

Four Futures Of Chevron Deference, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

In two upcoming cases, the Supreme Court will consider whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which, since 1984, has required courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of otherwise ambiguous statutes. In this short essay, I defend the proposition that, even on death’s door, Chevron deference is likely to be resurrected, and I offer a simple positive political theory model that helps explain why. The core insight of this model is that the prevailing approach to judicial review of agency interpretations of law is politically contingent—that is, it is likely to represent an equilibrium that efficiently maximizes the Supreme Court’s …

Democratic Erosion And The United States Supreme Court, Jenny Breen

Utah Law Review

For many decades, confidence in American institutions and political culture consistently led scholars to sideline questions about “regime change” in the United States. And for many years, that approach seemed justified. Democratic institutions were firmly rooted and stable, and American voters participated in free and fair elections that resulted in the peaceful transfer of power between parties and candidates. Then came the campaign of Donald Trump and all that has followed since, including open challenges to the most basic and fundamental democratic norms. These changes have led many voters, commentators, and scholars to ask: Is democracy eroding in the United …

The Delegation Doctrine, Jonathan Adler

Faculty Publications

The nondelegation doctrine may remain moribund, but the outlines of a delegation doctrine may be visible in the Court’s recent jurisprudence. Instead of policing the limits on Congress’s power to delegate authority to administrative agencies, the Court has instead been focusing on whether the power administrative agencies seek to exercise has been properly delegated by Congress in the first place. This emerging delegation doctrine may be seen in both the Court’s recent major questions doctrine cases, as well as the Court’s decisions refining and constraining the Chevron doctrine. In both contexts the Court has embraced the principle that agencies may …

Banned Books & Banned Identities: Maintaining Secularism And The Ability To Read In Public Education For The Well-Being Of America's Youth, Megan M. Tylenda

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

Books containing LGBTQ+ themes and characters are being removed from public school libraries at a rapid rate across the United States. While a book challenge has made it to the Supreme Court once before, the resulting singular plurality opinion left courts without a clear test to apply, ultimately leaving students’ First Amendment rights in the air. Additionally, the increasingly relaxed view of courts towards religious influence in public schools indicates that if a modern case were to reach the Supreme Court, religious challenges may be accepted, which would leave LGBTQ+ students who seek to see themselves represented in literature without …

The Major Questions Doctrine At The Boundaries Of Interpretive Law, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s apparent transformation of the major questions doctrine into a clear statement rule demanding clear congressional authorization for “major” agency actions has already had, and will continue to have, wide-ranging impacts on American public law. Not the least of these is the impact it will have on the enterprise of statutory interpretation. Indeed, while it is easy to focus on the policy repercussions of a newly constrained Congress and newly hamstrung administrative state, this Article argues that equally important is the novel precedent that is set in this particular formulation of a clear statement rule, which stands almost …

Interlocal Power Roulette, Daniel B. Rosenbaum

Indiana Law Journal

Local governments inhabit a crowded ecosystem. Cities, counties, and school districts—and many more—share overlapping territorial jurisdictions. Overlapping jurisdiction goes hand-in-hand with redundant local power, defined as a scenario where multiple governments hold independent authority to take the exact same action in the exact same territorial space. In Maine, for example, state law empowers three local bodies to operate the same sewer infrastructure. In Detroit, two separate entities are equally tasked with managing the city’s streetlights. And in communities across the country, local governments are broadly authorized to own the same parcels of public land, including in Oakland, California, where public …

Chevron And Stare Decisis, Kent H. Barnett, Christopher J. Walker

Scholarly Works

In our contribution to this Chevron on Trial Symposium, we argue that the Supreme Court should not overrule Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its companion case Relentless v. Department of Commerce. We based our argument largely on statutory stare decisis. In particular, Chevron deference is a bedrock precedent in administrative law, relied on by the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts thousands of times since Chevron was decided in 1984. Congress, federal agencies, and the regulated public have also structured their affairs around the precedent. Conversely, the constitutional arguments against Chevron are unpersuasive, and the debate …

Reforming The Federal Regulatory Review Process, Joanne Spalding, Andres Restrepo

FIU Law Review

For decades, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has overseen the development of federal regulatory policies with a strong emphasis on benefit-cost analysis. Despite its conceptual appeal, this analytic tool consistently shortchanges environmental and public health protection, with especially negative consequences for environmental justice communities. In this article, we address some of those shortcomings, focusing in particular on the standard agency practice of arithmetically discounting regulatory costs and benefits that accrue in the future. We propose that the OIRA abandon this practice as it relates to non-market goods, such as human lives saved, and instead work toward a …

The Right To Remove In Agency Adjudication, Christopher J. Walker, David Zaring

Articles

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutional future of agency adjudication, especially in the context of agency enforcement actions and the imposition of civil penalties. If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit on any of its three independent reasons for unconstitutionality, agency enforcement and adjudication schemes across the federal regulatory state will be severely disrupted, in ways that are detrimental to both the regulator and the regulated. In this Essay, we propose a path forward: In certain circumstances, the regulated party should have a right to remove an enforcement action from an in-house agency adjudication …