Administrative Law Commons^™

A Theory Of Major Questions, Nicholas Almendares

Cardozo Law Review

The major questions doctrine has been fiercely criticized as an example of the Supreme Court’s “imperial” turn where it concentrates ever more power in its own hands. The doctrine is sweeping, vague, and lacks a clear justification. Not only does the Court get to decide when the doctrine applies and when the heightened standard is satisfied, but it has also not offered good reasons behind this rule. A well-defined theory would give the doctrine structure, clarity, and consistency. While majority opinions have been conspicuously quiet on the theory behind the major questions doctrine, concurrences, namely by Justice Gorsuch, have argued …

Regulating Robotaxis, Bryant Walker Smith, Matthew T. Wansley

Articles

In several sunbelt cities, commercial robotaxi service has arrived. The leading robotaxi company is providing over 400,000 trips per week. The industry claims that robotaxis will save lives and provide convenient and affordable mobility. Critics counter that they will increase congestion, undermine transit, and subject the public to ubiquitous surveillance. We argue that the social impact of robotaxis depends on how they are regulated. We emphasize two points missing from the debate. First, some of the benefits of robotaxis may be political rather than technological—some longstanding public policy goals may become viable in a robotaxi world. Second, letting one private …

Slaughter, The Symmetry Rule, And What The Decision Of 1789 Actually Decided, Jane Manners, Lev Menand

Faculty Scholarship

During oral argument in Slaughter last month, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that there were three textual sources for an illimitable presidential removal power: the Vesting Clause, the Take Care Clause, and the Appointments Clause. Why the Appointments Clause? Because, he explained, “the power to remove flows to the power to appoint.” According to Sauer, a run of nineteenth century cases, including Ex Parte Hennen, supports this proposition.

Sauer’s contention is not new: Chief Justice Taft in Myers v. U.S. also claimed that in the First Congress, “the express recognition of the power of appointment in [Article II] enforced this …

Rivers Of Sovereignty: The Epa’S New Water Quality Standards Rule As A Potential Channel For Revitalizing Tribal Reserved Water Rights, Mostyn Josty

Cardozo Law Review

This Note explores the federal government’s evolving approach to its obligation to protect tribal reserved water rights through a case study of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions to Protect Tribal Reserved Rights rule (the “WQS Rule”). It argues that while the WQS Rule represents a step forward in safeguarding tribal water rights, the legal challenge it faces underscores broader issues of federalism, administrative authority, and the country’s fluctuating commitment to tribal sovereignty. The Note examines the WQS Rule’s legal foundation, its potential challenges, and the implications for tribal self-determination, emphasizing the need for a …

The Elusive Nexus Standard: Differing Approaches To The Asylum Nexus Standard As Applied To Religious Persecution Perpetrated By Gangs, Chloe Schalit

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In 2015, Ms. Odalis Mireida Chicas-Machado, the secretary of an evangelical church in El Salvador, started getting harassed by members of the MS-13 gang during her walks to and from the church. Chicas-Machado believed that the harassment began because the gang considered her to be an enemy due to her work spreading the message of God to young people who otherwise might have joined the gang. Approximately one year after the harassment commenced, gang members threatened Chicas-Machado with death if she refused to alert the gang when police cars drove by a local store. The gang sought out Chicas-Machado for …

The Unitary Theorists' Appointments Clause Problems, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The unitary executive theorists’ recent retreat to the Appointments Clause as a basis for unconditional presidential removal power is contradicted by the text and by overwhelming originalist evidence.

It is a surprising argument for a power of presidential removal, because the text of the Appointments Clause plainly requires both the President and Senate to appoint. The noncommon sense reading, that the president alone appoints, and thus the president can remove, was not in any of the Trump Administration’s briefs, but it was in a single amicus brief, and it was picked up in oral argument and the mainstream media.

This …