Administrative Law Commons^™

Against Constitutional Rights For Frontier Ai Companies In Government Contracts, Thomas H. Lee

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clickwrap Accountability, Alicia Solow-Niederman

Fordham Law Review

Picture a public‑facing generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot on a government website that can answer questions about benefits eligibility. Systems like these expose a sociotechnical-legal divide: They route around the standard due process framework because there has been no formal government determination, yet they induce reliance from users, above and beyond past rounds of automated legal guidance. Moreover, if there is an error, current doctrine on government errors and equitable estoppel makes relief unlikely.

This Essay focuses on government deployment of public‑facing generative AI chatbots and critically assesses the front‑end power dynamics that determine who is filtered out of government …

Fabricating The Crime Of Undocumented Presence, Eric S. Fish, Doug Keller

Fordham Law Review

In 2025, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) declared that it is a federal crime simply to be an undocumented immigrant. Congress has enacted no such crime. Congress has made it a crime for an immigrant to enter the United States in a manner that “eludes examination or inspection.” For nearly 100 years, this “elude” offense has been understood to occur only at the moment an immigrant enters the country. But the Trump administration’s OLC has reinterpreted this crime as a continuing offense. Under this new reading, an immigrant who entered unlawfully eludes examination until the moment of …

How Did We Get Here?, Michael J. Klarman

Fordham Law Review

President Donald J. Trump’s second administration has transgressed basic rules and norms of democracy and the rule of law in myriad ways. Below, I have laid out my own top ten list of transgressions, though others could surely have made out a good case for their own “favorites.” It would not be difficult to come up with a longer list, yet the purpose of my Levine Lecture is less to describe where we are than to explain how we got here. Following an enumeration of Trump administration transgressions, my lecture turns to two questions. First, why have traditional checks on …

Splitting The Baby: Determining The Causation Standard In Family And Medical Leave Act Retaliation Claims, Eliana C. Singer

Fordham Law Review

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees employees unpaid leave following certain qualifying events. The FMLA not only provides substantive rights but also prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise those rights. When employees face unlawful retaliation, they can bring retaliation claims against their employers. However, there is disagreement among courts as to how to evaluate these claims. More precisely, courts are split concerning whether employees must prove their use of leave was a but-for cause of retaliation, or merely that it was one of an employer’s mixed motives for retaliating. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and …

The Unitary Executive And The Federal Reserve, Lev Menand

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court may soon embrace an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would significantly expand the power of the president over federal administrators and invalidate key provisions in dozens of federal statutes. A critical question is whether this interpretation—known as the unitary executive theory (UET)—would also render unconstitutional central bank independence (CBI), an arrangement where a country’s monetary policy is formulated by a semiautonomous body of experts insulated from partisan political pressure. Several justices have suggested that it would not, and a growing scholarly literature has proposed ways for the Court to distinguish the country’s central banking apparatus …

Reorganizing The Administrative State: Executive Ambition And Legislative Constraint, Jordan Graber

Fordham Law Review

Beginning in the 1930s, Congress enacted a series of statutes granting presidents the authority to initiate reorganizations of the administrative state. Under these reorganization statutes, the president determined any necessary changes in agency organization and submitted a reorganization proposal to Congress, which could approve or reject the plan. Over the next fifty years, the president and Congress worked cooperatively to promote the effective and efficient functioning of the administrative state.

Despite the successful reorganization initiatives undertaken pursuant to these statutes, Congress has not conferred reorganization authority on any president in the last four decades. As a result, the organization of …

The Glomar Of It All: The Role Of External Disclosures In Agency Refusals To Confirm Or Deny Under Foia, Claire Paulanne Kurzweil

Fordham Law Review

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to disclose records upon request from the public, subject to statutory exemptions. Increasingly, agencies have relied on a nonstatutory mechanism, known as the Glomar response, to avoid disclosure. This mechanism, which allows agencies to refuse to confirm or deny the very existence of records, prevents courts and FOIA requesters from receiving even the basic information necessary for judicial review. As courts attempt to adapt FOIA’s review framework to the increased evidentiary constraints of Glomar responses, they are divided over whether to consider disclosures from outside the agency responding to the FOIA …

Lawless Antitrust, John M. Newman

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Revival Of Section 5: A Return To The Ftc’S Roots In A Time Of Democratic Crisis, Shaoul Sussman

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interrogation Of Regents And Administrative Reliance Interests In The Context Of Vacillating Immigration Policy, Sarah Engelberg-Nolan

Fordham Law Review

Arbitrary and capricious review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) operates as an important agency-accountability tool when invoked as intended. But the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and subsequent lower federal court cases have opened the floodgates to a more searching and potentially activist review. In Regents, the Court held that the administration of President Donald J. Trump could not rescind the discretionary immigration program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in the manner the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted, in part because DHS failed to …

The U.S. Critical Minerals List: Between A Rock And A Hard Place, Wesley Peebles

Fordham Environmental Law Review

Critical minerals are minerals found essential to economic and national security and vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. Congress and presidents from both political parties have actively promoted critical mineral production, offering up billions of dollars to secure mineral supply chains. The federal government has invested to increase domestic mineral production, grow global partnerships, and reinvigorate U.S. industry in an attempt to reduce the risk of supply disruptions for these valuable minerals. To identify which minerals are critical to the United States, Congress tasked the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to evaluate and identify a …

The Nlrb’S Authority To Make Workers Whole, Wanny Mei

Fordham Law Review

In December 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”) announced a modified make-whole remedial framework in Thryv, Inc.For all standard make-whole relief orders, the Board would order relief for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms that employees suffer as a result of an unfair labor practice. Proponents of this remedial design assert that this is consistent with the Board’s authority under section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). On the other hand, opponents find that this design exceeds the Board’s statutory authority and conflicts with the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

This Note …

Recalibrating Deference In Sentencing, Meghana Nemali

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) is responsible for promoting consistency, transparency, and fairness in federal sentencing. In pursuit of this mandate, the Commission publishes the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which are accompanied by official commentary. In Stinson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court endowed the commentary with controlling authority. However, nearly three decades later, the Court in Kisor v. Wilkie granted courts greater discretion in deciding whether to defer to the commentary. Moreover, in 2024, the Court eliminated the absolute deference regime for administrative agency determinations in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. As a result, …

Trump V. Cook And The American Rule Of For-Cause Removal, Jane Manners, Lev Menand

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Law Of For Cause Removal, Jane Manners, Lev Menand

Faculty Scholarship

For the first time in American history, the Supreme Court is poised to decide what it means for the president to remove a principal officer “for cause.” The case — which arises from the attempted removal of Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — has major implications for central bank independence in the United States and, more broadly, for the U.S. administrative state. But given how long it has been since such offices were formally contested, courts and commentators have forgotten many aspects of the legal tradition governing “for cause” removal. In …

Not So Firmly Settled: How The Inconsistent Jurisprudence Of The Firm Resettlement Bar Serves As A Tool For Asylum Seeker Exclusion, Caroline V. Garrido

Fordham Law Review

The firm resettlement bar to asylum, designed to limit protections to those without refuge elsewhere, has become a source of inconsistency, confusion, and exclusion in U.S. asylum law. Circuit courts have adopted two different approaches for determining whether an asylum seeker has firmly resettled in a third country. Despite the Board of Immigration Appeals’ attempt to unify these approaches through the introduction of a burden-shifting framework, courts remain divided, and there is no clear guidance on what constitutes firm resettlement. This Note argues that this lack of guidance has led to inconsistent court holdings and interpretations that conflict with the …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Fordham Law Review

One hundred and twenty years ago, in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of the single most notorious opinions in history, striking down a New York labor law for violating the right to contract—a right found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Though the era of Lochner v. New York is well past us, the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case remain. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the president, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts.

Bringing together two …

Fixing The Fix: The Case For Unifying The Remedial Framework Of Apa Rulemaking Challenges, Dea Devlin

Fordham Law Review

Vacatur is the default remedy for successful administrative rulemaking challenges brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Yet its broad and sweeping effects raise critical questions regarding its appropriateness as a one-size-fits-all remedy. Unlike injunctive relief, which is subject to a rigorous heightened standard, and remand without vacatur, which has a comparable standard of its own, vacatur is routinely awarded without similar scrutiny, leading to inconsistencies in the judicial application of remedies in APA challenges.

Although vacatur can provide a plaintiff with relief, its award conflicts with underlying principles of equity and proportionality. In rulemaking challenges, vacatur can create regulatory …

Is Your Data Good, Bad, Or Neutral?: Redefining Concreteness For Data Breach Harms, Jeeyoon Lim

Fordham Law Review

In recent years, the Supreme Court has tightened federal court standing requirements for intangible harms, including statutory harms. In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Court held that a mere statutory violation, absent a common-law analogue, is not sufficiently concrete to grant standing. The Court did not provide clear guidance as to how stringent the common-law analogue analysis must be, other than that it does not require an “exact duplicate.” Because of the ever-evolving nature of digital data, data breach victims attempting to enforce their statutory right to privacy in federal court have struggled to rely on tradition and history …

The Inevitability Of Local Environmental Law, Keith H. Hirokawa, Cinnamon Carlarne Hirokawa, Lauren A. Vanwagoner

Fordham Environmental Law Review

The United States is entering a new era of environmental law. Within the first few months of President Trump’s second term in office, the administration issued a mass of executive orders, memoranda and policy changes that seek to peel back environmental protections, in many cases, to the point of erasure. The administration shuttered entire agencies, such as USAID, dissolved the Environmental Protection Agency’s research arm, terminated life-saving programs like the National Weather Service’s translation service, cut funding to housing and public health initiatives, and eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the country. Given the reality of these large-scale drawbacks, …

Rethinking Aquaculture Regulation In A Post-Chevron World, Kamaile A. N. Turčan

Fordham Environmental Law Review

After the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, commentators warned of the detriment to federal agencies resulting from the loss of judicial deference to agencies’ interpretations of the statutes they administer. This Essay takes a different approach and examines how advocates for agency authority can use this shift away from judicial deference to their advantage—by refocusing litigation strategy toward congressional delegations. Statutory interpretation arguments need no longer focus on whether an agency is intruding on the judicial prerogative to interpret the law and can now focus instead on whether a court is intruding on the …

An Alternate History Of Chevron, With A Lesson For Today, Michael Herz

Fordham Environmental Law Review

It is a banal truism that judicial deference to agency decisionmaking enables the executive branch to pursue its agenda, whatever that agenda may be. That was obvious to all in the early years of the Chevron decision, which was greeted enthusiastically on the right and skeptically on the left. In Chevron itself, and for a while thereafter, deference advanced the Reagan deregulatory program. Over the years, a subtler conclusion gained consensus: overall and in the long haul, judicial deference is likely to have a net pro-regulatory impact. Hence the right’s hardened opposition to Chevron leading up to its demise. But …

A Distinctive Court: A Glimpse Into The History And Significance Of The D.C. Circuit, Judge J. Michelle Childs

Fordham Law Review

Judge J. Michelle Childs serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before her appointment, Judge Childs received a B.A. from the University of South Florida Honors College and a J.D. from the University of South Carolina School of Law. She also received Masters degrees from the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business and from Duke University School of Law, as well as an Honorary Doctorate Degree from the University of South Carolina. After working in private practice for eight years, Judge Childs received an appointment to serve as the Deputy Director for the …

“Shipping” Away The Captive Audience Meeting, Nathan Kakalec

Fordham Law Review

On November 14, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned seventy-six years of labor law precedent by banning captive audience meetings in Amazon.com Services LLC. Captive audience meetings, mandatory meetings where employers discuss unionization with their employees, were a powerful anti-union tool used by employers to coerce their employees into rejecting unionization. The NLRB argues that captive audience meetings are inconsistent with § 7 and § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employers reject the NLRB’s assertion and contend that banning captive audience meetings infringes on their First Amendment right to communicate their views on unionization. …

Does The Major Questions Doctrine Apply To The Federal Courts?, Michael Coenen, Seth Davis

Fordham Law Review

The new “major questions doctrine” (MQD) requires courts to apply a “distinct” approach to statutory interpretation when reviewing challenges to an agency action of “vast economic and political significance.” Under that approach, courts must assume that such an action exceeds the scope of that agency’s statutory authority unless there exists “clear congressional authorization” for it. In this Article, we examine whether this new rule for administrative agencies (or what we call the “agency MQD”) implies the existence of a similarly strong constraint on the federal courts’ power to interpret and apply statutes for themselves (or what we call the “judicial …

Efta Coverage Of Modern Consumer Wire Transfers: Consumer Financial Regulation In The Wake Of Loper Bright, Benjamin Gygi

Fordham Law Review

The rise of online banking has led to a proliferation of consumer fraud. Schemes aimed at stealing consumer funds using wire transfers executed through online banking portals have proven particularly devastating to consumers because of a perceived loophole in the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) that leaves consumers with full liability for funds stolen through wire transfers. Consumer advocacy groups, and most notably the New York Attorney General, have recently argued that this loophole does not really exist; they claim that the EFTA’s text conclusively covers certain parts of modern wire transfer processes initiated through online banking portals. Considering the …

Lawyering As A Public Health Tool: Enforcing Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act With Preventative Litigation, Elena Cohen

Fordham Law Review

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs cannot bring a claim alleging a risk of unnecessary institutionalization under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This directly contradicts the holdings of six other circuit courts and guidance issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ)—all of which maintain that Title II of the ADA (Title II), the integration mandate, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring permit these claims. This Note explores how the circuit courts have evaluated risk of unnecessary institutionalization claims, including …

Beyond Agency Authority: Regulating Sulfur Hexafluoride Under An Enhanced Title Ii Framework Of The Clean Air Act, Matthew Gawley

Fordham Environmental Law Review

This paper explores the critical need for robust Congressional action to regulate sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential more than 20,000 times greater than carbon dioxide. Recent Supreme Court decisions––in West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo––to restrict EPA authority and end the Chevron doctrine have curtailed federal environmental agencies’ regulatory authority, shifting the responsibility for addressing major environmental challenges back to Congress. Despite being addressed under Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), current SF6 regulations prove grossly inadequate. The utilities industry––the largest …