Administrative Law Commons^™

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 …

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 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 …

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 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, …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

“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. …

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 …

Life After Employee-Status In College Sports, Marc Edelman, John T. Holden, Michael A. Mccann

Fordham Law Review

National Collegiate Athletic Association; NCAA; college sports; intercollegiate sports; college athletes; college-athlete employee; amateurism; worker; employee; employment status; collective bargaining; single-employer bargaining units; Multiemployer Bargaining Units; Joint Employer Bargaining Units; antitrust

Administrative Forum Shopping, Amy L. Stein

Fordham Law Review

Allowing private parties in litigation to stack the deck in their favor through forum shopping is standard fare in the United States. But not everyone realizes that public legislators engage in a similar exercise when they stack the deck in one party’s favor through “jurisdiction-stripping” or “jurisdiction-channeling” provisions. Congress can strip federal courts of all or some of its jurisdiction, channel jurisdiction over a particular class of cases into one particular court, and even strip the U.S. Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction. Understandably, this last category has received the most attention, as scholars are drawn to the penultimate conflict …

(Synthetic) Stump Speech: Crafting Generative Ai Disclosure Regulations For Political Advertisements, Alex Paget

Fordham Law Review

Synthetic media, or content generated using artificial intelligence, has begun to infect political advertising. Federal legislation has spent most of its time stalled in committees, but states and online platforms have rapidly implemented regulations. Although synthetic media may pose harms through voter manipulation and democratic distortion, it also can lower campaign costs and more vividly illustrate conceptions of a political choice’s consequences. Some governments and commentators have sought to prohibit the most harmful forms, while others have focused more on transparent approaches to regulation. In the face of yet another contentious election cycle, the question of how to ensure choices …

An Apt Analogy?: Rethinking The Role Of Judicial Deference To The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Post-Kisor, Amy Walker

Fordham Law Review

Since its inception in 1984, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) has struggled to garner and maintain a sense of legitimacy among federal judges. The tension is both a story about competing expertise between judges and the Commission and competing values, namely uniformity and individuality. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stinson v. United States prioritized uniformity by telling lower courts to treat the Commission as they would any other administrative agency. Lower courts—for the most part—faithfully executed this directive until 2019, when the Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie gave them another option, one that seemed to leave …

Nondelegation And The Legislative Versus Administrative Exactions Divide: Why Legislatively Imposed Exactions Do Not Require A More Searching Standard Of Review, Hunter Dominick

Fordham Law Review

As the United States continues to grow and urbanize, local governments have tried to manage this growth to mitigate the external impacts that new developments can cause. One method by which state and local governments seek to control growth within their borders is by imposing conditions on the issuance of building permits—otherwise known as exactions. Exactions, however, face federal constitutional limits under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, the U.S. Supreme Court restricted exactions in …

“Major” Challenges For Lower Courts: Inconsistent Applications Of The Major Questions Doctrine In Lower Courts After West Virginia V. Environmental Protection Agency, Sarah A. Schmoyer

Fordham Law Review

Under the major questions doctrine, an agency requires clear congressional authorization to regulate on an issue of major national significance. Although a version of the doctrine has existed for several years, its rise in importance is recent. The U.S. Supreme Court invoked the doctrine by name for the first time in 2022 in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, warning that in certain “extraordinary cases,” the “history and the breadth” and the “economic and political significance” of the agency action may “provide a reason to hesitate” before accepting the agency’s authority. West Virginia has since inspired a wave of …

Ending Exemption 5 Expansion: Toward A Narrower Interpretation Of Foia’S Exemption For Inter- And Intra-Agency Memorandums, Ryan W. Miller

Fordham Law Review

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) creates a judicially enforceable right to access almost any record that a federal agency creates or obtains. Its crafters aimed to strike a careful balance in promoting disclosure of government records to increase transparency while still protecting the confidentiality of certain information. Although any person can request an agency record, FOIA’s nine exemptions allow agencies to withhold records if certain conditions are met. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) permits agencies to withhold “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters” that would normally be privileged in civil discovery. Through this exemption, Congress sought to prevent FOIA from …

Modern Disaster Fragmentation, Abigail E. André

Fordham Law Review

Natural disasters test us. They exist at the intersection of nature, law, and society to show us where our systems are failing. Beyond physical damage, they magnify weaknesses in our socioeconomic and legal systems. In an attempt to leverage the lessons disasters bring, this Article analyzes the administrative institutions that govern disaster relief from the perspective of law, history, equity, and institutional design. This intersectional analysis uncovers a system fragmented by centuries of disorganization and infused with socioeconomic discrimination. Minor revisions cannot fix our federal approach to disaster relief: an institutional overhaul is required to achieve good governance.

Marijuana And The Tyrannies Of Scheduling, Robert A. Mikos

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expecting Medication Surveillance, Jennifer D. Oliva

Fordham Law Review

In response to federal financial incentives and mandates, all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories administer electronic prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). Federal and state policymakers justified the implementation and enhancement of ubiquitous prescription drug monitoring by contending that expansive state drug surveillance was a necessary weapon in the war against the American drug overdose crisis. As is often the case with tools designed for law enforcement surveillance, however, PDMPs have proven susceptible to mission creep. Although pioneer PDMPs were paper-based systems that limited their surveillance to a narrow class of heavily regulated controlled substances, modern …

Psychedelics, Psychosocial Support, And Psychotherapy: Why It Matters For The Law, Ethics, And Business Of Medical Psychedelic Use, I. Glenn Cohen

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Improving Lawyers & Lives: How Immigrant Justice Corps Built A Model For Quality Representation While Empowering Recent Law School And College Graduates And The Immigrant Communities Whom They Serve, Jojo Annobil, Elizabeth Gibson

Fordham Law Review

The late Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit formed a study group in 2008 called the Study Group on Immigrant Representation to assess the scope of the problem and find a solution. The study group determined that the representation crisis was an issue “of both quality and quantity” and that the two most important variables for a successful outcome in a case were having counsel and not being detained. To address this need, the study group established two innovative programs: the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP), the first public defender …