Administrative Law Commons^™

Leveraging Citizen Science To Advance Environmental Justice In Climate-Vulnerable Communities Post-Loper Bright, Lauren Valli

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental, & Innovation Law

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v.

Raimondo removed the judicial obligation to defer to the Environmental

Protection Agency’s statutory interpretations, overturning forty years of

Chevron v. NRDC jurisprudence. Now, generalist judges must

independently evaluate complex scientific data when determining

statutory meaning, creating the risk that well-resourced industry parties

will use their litigation advantages to secure pollution-permissive statutory

interpretations. Without deference to EPA’s technical understanding and

public welfare considerations, environmental litigation outcomes

increasingly depend on which party can most persuasively present

environmental data in court. This interpretation shift widens the

environmental enforcement gap and disproportionately harms historically …

A Guide To The Best Reading Of Environmental Law: Presumptions For Stability In Statutory Interpretation, Sanne H. Knudsen

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Administrative law is in flux and its doctrines flexible. Recent doctrinal shifts—like the ousting of Chevron and the introduction of the major questions doctrine—raise significant questions about how courts will determine the best reading of statutes and carve out a role for agency expertise in statutory interpretation. For environmental law, a field that relies heavily on federal agencies for implementation, the flux and flexibility of administrative law presents challenges. But they also present opportunities.

On the one hand, the recent changes to administrative law pose a destabilizing and deregulatory risk for environmental law unless courts develop a consistent methodology for …

Between Seminole Rock And A Hard(Er) Place: A New(Er) Approach To Agency Deference, Kevin O. Leske

Catholic University Law Review

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the United States Supreme Court in 2024 overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., ending the Chevron doctrine’s reign as the applicable rule for courts to use in reviewing agency interpretations of their authorizing statute. Although Chevron’s demise was no great surprise, the Court’s decision leaves myriad questions that may take decades to answer. The most pressing question is: what is now the precise standard that courts must apply to determine statutory meaning in these cases? But there is a related question that is equally important to our ever-changing …

Twilight Of Deference? Kisor, Chevron, And The Fate Of Deference To The Commentary Of The United States Sentencing Guidelines, Hannah May

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enabling Unpredictability And The Perils Of Judicial Science And Math In Ohio V. Epa, Neil Taylor, Bradford Mank

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corner Post, Caremark, And The Rule Of Law: When Corporate Fiduciaries Should Reject Corner Post's Invitation To Sue, Kate Jackson, Bridget Dooling

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulatory Uncertainty And The New Administrative Law, Lisa Heinzerling

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dysregulation, John Applegate

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Post-Chevron Law Of Deference For Investor-State Arbitration, Won L. Kidane

Faculty Publications

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the United States Supreme Court clarified the “law of deference” built “on the foundation laid in Chevron.” The American conception of the law of deference, long solidified as the Chevron doctrine, has had extraordinary resonance, having been cited in at least 18,000 cases and 22,000 publications over a period of forty years.

The Court’s overruling of the two-step Chevron analysis for the resolution of statutory ambiguity is the most obvious outcome and is likely to attract the most attention. There is, however, an obscure aspect of the Court’s overruling of Chevron: the clarification of …

Peeking Around The Corner (Post): An Analysis Of The Impacts Of Corner Post V. Federal Reserve On Environmental Regulations, Olivia Montgomery

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reclaiming Interpretation: Psgs, Asylum Law, And The Post-Loper Bright Landscape, Andrew Elkins

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo marked the end of Chevron deference, reshaping the framework that courts must use when reviewing agency interpretations of statutes. This Note examines the consequences of that doctrinal shift in the context of U.S. asylum law, where statutory ambiguity and agency discretion have long played a central role. Focusing on the “particular social group” (PSG) ground for asylum, this Note argues that Loper Bright requires courts to reclaim primary responsibility for interpreting asylum statutes. It analyzes how Chevron deference previously empowered the Board of Immigration Appeals to issue binding interpretations …

The Impact Of The Chevron Ruling On Medicare, Sana Sherali

DePaul Journal of Health Care Law

The Supreme Court’s historic decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine in June 2024 received national attention due to its implications for how much power agencies will hold in the years to come. The Chevron doctrine originally comes from the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Chevron addressed the requirements imposed on states by The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. This decision set the precedent that if federal legislation is unclear or leaves an administrative gap, courts have to follow the regulatory agency’s interpretation of the law, as long as the interpretation is …

Defining Deference: Impacts Of Abandoning Chevron On Emerging Technology Governance And Administrative Law, R. Aubrey Davis Iii

Seattle University Law Review

Emerging technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), often lead to unforeseen legal outcomes. Notable abuses in areas such as facial recognition, employment bias, and housing discrimination are well known. However, legislative responses to these issues either have been largely reactive or there has been no legislative response at all. In lieu of legislation, agencies have sought to fill the gap. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently proposed a rule mandating voter notification for all AI-generated political phone calls citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 as authority. However, the TCPA was originally passed to curtail telemarketing, not …

What The Hell Is The Major Questions Doctrine?, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

Anita S. Krishnakumar, What the New Major Questions Doctrine Is Not, 92 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1117 (2024).

When the sun sets in New York City, it rises in Tokyo. Okay, maybe not exactly, but you get the idea: setting somewhere, rising somewhere else. Now substitute Chevron for N.Y.C. and the Major Questions Doctrine for Tokyo. For the past forty years, administrative law scholars have been arguing over Chevron, and now that the sun has set on that doctrine, it’s time to turn our attention to the new rising sun, the Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”). The sudden emergence …

Loper Bright’S Deregulatory Synergies, Renee Farmer, Daniel G. Aaron

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

For over 40 years, Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council stood as a keystone of administrative law. It infused agencies with the discretion to leverage the edges of statutory language and granted them the security that day-to-day agency actions would survive judicial review. Although Chevron’s demise in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo elicited rebuke from many legal scholars, it struck some as unsurprising, unimportant, or unconcerning, whether due to the narrowing of Chevron over time, the Supreme Court’s disuse of it in recent years, or the belief that its holding flew in the face of the Administrative Procedure Act. …

"Then What?": A Framework For Life Without Chevron, Gary Lawson

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce. What happens next? What should happen next?

This essay does not try to answer either of those important questions. Rather, it seeks to provide a framework to promote careful thinking about those questions. Specifically, any predictive or prescriptive account of the law governing judicial review of federal agency legal interpretations needs to think carefully about four issues.

First, what does “deference” actually mean in any given context? “Deference” can mean anything from polite respect to absolute obeisance, and everything in …

Statutory Liquidation, Daniel Deacon

Articles

When might practice by the political branches settle the meaning of legal text? That question has mostly been taken up in the constitutional setting, with one strand of scholarship taking inspiration from Madison's statement in Federalist No. 37, that "{a}ll new laws ... are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series ef particular discussions and aqjudications." The prospect that post-enactment practice might liquidate the meaning of statutory text has been comparatively underexamined. That's not surprising. Under modern textualism, post-enactment considerations would seem to have little place. And under Chevron …

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

Articles

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 …

The Major Questions Doctrine, Post-Chevron?: Skidmore, Loper-Bright, And A Good-Faith Emergency Question Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

When my students and colleagues fretted about Chevron's fate, I have said, "Worry less. Skid-more." Just as old Skidmore "weight" or "respect" returns post-Chevron, the new (and newer) major questions doctrine(s) survive as a reason to give less weight to an agency interpretation. This symposium essay suggests a special role for the post-Chevron major questions doctrine: an Emergency Questions Doctrine. When the executive asserts an emergency power, when the statutory basis is open-ended (often for very good reasons), majorness means less deference to simple and fast textualism, and more time for courts to engage in deeper purposivism to …

Predicting (And Protecting) The Future Of Environmental Law After Loper Bright, Sanne H. Knudsen

Articles

Nostradamus, the sixteenth-century French philosopher and seer, is said to have predicted many things: the French Revolution, the rise of Napoleon, the Great Fire of London, the rise of Adolf Hitler, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Of course, there are skeptics. The predictions, after all, tended to be “cryptic and vague.”

Still, if alive today, I wonder what quatrain Nostradamus might write—and what elusive meaning his fans might try to decode—about the future of environmental law in the United States. Would he predict that environmental law will be ravaged by the binary politics of the moment, reduced …

Chevron's 51 Imperfect Solutions., Christopher J. Walker, Neena Menon

Articles

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the judicial deference federal agencies previously received for their statutory interpretations, overturning the Court’s landmark 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. While Chevron was never binding on state courts, where the balance of powers and state constitutions may require different or no deference to agencies, numerous states have adopted Chevron deference, Skidmore weight, or similar deference regimes for judicial review of agency legal interpretations. Despite these developments, little scholarly attention has been paid to how and why states have developed administrative law’s deference doctrines, how the …

Chevron Deference Is Dead, Long Live Deference, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The demise of Chevron deference standing alone may turn out to be much less important for the future of administrative law and agency regulation than many believe. The Court explicitly approved of deference under the Skidmore factors, which instruct reviewing courts to “resort for guidance, even on legal questions” to “the interpretations and opinions of the relevant agency, made in pursuance of official duty and based upon specialized experience.”8 Further, the Court had already created numerous limitations to the reach of Chevron deference and, as the Court noted, it had not deferred under Chevron in nearly a decade. Chevron deference …

Tossing Sand In The Regulatory Gears: Hurdles To Policy Progress In The Supreme Court, Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has been a source of seismic change. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court overruled Roe v. Wade, which had protected the right to abortion for nearly fifty years. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court abandoned so-called Chevron deference to particular categories of administrative agency interpretations, a doctrine viewed as bedrock for over forty years. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 ruling validating independent multi-member commissions such as the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Communications Commission, may soon join the others on the …

The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …

Four Futures Of Chevron Deference, Daniel 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 …

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.

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 …

Power Corrupts, Emily S. Bremer

Journal Articles

Administrative agencies bear principal responsibility for keeping the federal government’s promises by giving effect in the real world to the laws Congress enacts. If administrative law’s goal was to help agencies fulfill this responsibility, its lodestar would be a thick concept of administration. But as a field, administrative law today neglects administration, focusing instead on power and the institutions that wield it, particularly the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress. This Essay traces the field’s reorientation from administration to power, beginning with the deportation cases that revealed thinner-than-acknowledged political will behind the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), through the misunderstood shift …

Legitimacy And The Major Questions Doctrine, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

Questions about the legitimacy of recent Supreme Court decisions are occupying an increasingly prominent place in public law discourse. Last February, a widely discussed feature in the New York Times quoted several well-known law professors' laments that multiple decision by the newly empowered conservative majority of the Court have departed so far from accepted constitutional premises that the professor could not figure out how to teach them to their students

...

With due respect to the Chief Justice, I will explain here why the MQD is itself among the few legal developments that I would describe as giving rise to …

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 …