Administrative Law Commons^™

Revolving In, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The “revolving door” — that is, the movement of policymakers from the private sector into government and back out again—is a longstanding issue of concern in law, political science, public administration, and government ethics. Although some applaud this exchange of personnel between the public and private sectors, the general tenor of popular, political, and academic coverage of the revolving door has been highly negative, marked by frequent references to corruption, capture, and conflicts of interest.

One striking feature of the scholarly treatment and nearly all the legal regulation of the revolving door has been a focus on “revolving out,” that …

Constitutional War Powers: Law & Strategy From The Revolution To Cyberconflict, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Books

Many believe that the power to start wars is the most important issue of constitutional war powers-and perhaps the most important issue of constitutional law altogether. Yet this fixation on the power to start wars obscures equally important questions. Who has the power to prepare for war, deter it, conduct it, decide its aims, or end it? Although many democracies wrestle with these constitutional questions, the United States stands apart in that no other written constitution has had to function over time across such dramatic transformations in national military power and radical swings in strategy for wielding it. To show …

The Threat To Government Ethics, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

That was quite a week. Over seven days in mid-October:

• President Trump hosted a White House dinner for three dozen super-wealthy individuals and representatives of major corporations who pledged funds for his $300 million ballroom.
• The president commuted the sentence of former Congressman George Santos, who had served less than three months of an 87-month term for corruption, and canceled Santos’s obligation to pay restitution to his victims.
• The president fired, without providing a reason or giving the 30 days’ notice required by law, the Inspector General for the Export-Import Bank.
• We learned the president is demanding the Department of …

From Myers To Slaughter: A Brief Theory Of The Constitutionalization Of Secondary Sources, Dana Neacsu, Paul D. Callister

Faculty Works

For more than two centuries, American constitutional adjudication has relied upon secondary sources. Yet constitutional theory has almost entirely ignored them. Originalism debates constitutional text. Living constitutionalism debates constitutional evolution. Theories of precedent debate judicial authority. None asks a more fundamental question: What role do secondary sources play in constitutional adjudication? This Article argues that the answer has fundamentally changed in the last 100 of years. Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers v. United States (1926) marked a constitutional revolution by transforming secondary authorities from explanatory materials into evidence of constitutional continuity. Exactly one century later, Chief Justice …

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 …

Presidential Removal As Article I, Not Article Ii, Gary Lawson, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

As a matter of original public meaning, Article I’s Necessary and Proper clause is the starting point for both Congress’s power to create offices and the limits on that power.

We believe that many legal scholars have demonstrated that, as a matter of original public meaning, the term “executive power” did not imply a presidential removal power, and Article II did not imply an indefeasible (unconditional) presidential removal power. By contrast, Article I’s Necessary and Proper Clause is a basis for limiting congressional power that is more historically grounded in original public meaning and in early practice. Tenure protections and …

Bank Supervision And Article Ii, Kathryn Judge

Faculty Scholarship

The administrative state is again at a cross roads. The Supreme Court seems poised to continue its march toward trying to fit all of government neatly into one of the three constitutionally enumerated branches. An important front of this shift has been a flattening of the mechanisms through which officers of the United States may be held appropriately accountable for their actions. Waning are the days when Congress had the flexibility to create the institutions it believed were “necessary and proper” for carrying into execution important policy aims and to determine the appropriate mechanisms for accountability in conjunction with considering …

Amicus In Trump V. Cook: The Fed, Offices As Property, And The Meaning Of “Cause”, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Reserve Act states that “each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President.” 12 U.S.C. § 242. Based on the historical record, when Congress creates an office with a fixed term of years and protects against removal without “cause,” Congress has both granted “a constitutionally protected property interest” under the Fifth Amendment (that cannot be taken away without “due process”) and extended a statutory entitlement to receive fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before any removal may …

Something Concrete: How Labor Advocates Can Best Respond To The Ambiguity Of Glacier Northwest, Ateş Serifsoy

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Glacier North-west, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174 (Glacier) marked a critical moment for workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the longstanding practice of Garmon preemption. Yet, initial fears of a significant rollback of workers’ rights, driven by sensational headlines, were met with an unexpectedly narrow Court opinion. This Comment examines Glacier’s implications for Gar-mon preemption and the right to strike. It offers the historical background of the doctrine of labor law preemption before Glacier; presents a detailed analysis of Glacier itself, including its …

The Indian Pharmacopoeia: Enabling Open Access And Crafting A ‘Sovereign Function Exception’ For Government Works, Aparajita Lath

National Law School Journal

Standardisation of drugs and access to such standards are important levers for effective drug regulation. The Indian Pharmacopoeia, the official book of standards for drugs in the country prescribed by the Union government under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, are legally binding and enforceable. Not only do the standards have the force of law but are also government-created. The Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission (IPC), a division of the Union Department of Health and Family Welfare, has a legal monopoly over creating and publishing this compendium. Though it is legally binding, the Indian Pharmacopoeia is neither in the public domain …

Whither Leviathan? The Seepage Of Constitutional Law Into Public-Private Arbitration In The United States, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

The chapter analyses how constitutional law influences private-public arbitration in the United States. Its central thesis is that constitutional law exerts a powerful indirect influence on arbitration law. While the US Constitution does not directly regulate arbitration, its underlying norms—such as separation of powers, federalism, and individual rights—impact arbitration law indirectly. The chapter explores the ways in which these constitutional principles influence public-private arbitration through statutory interpretation, treaty design, and private protocols reflecting constitutional norms. This pattern of influence manifests itself in public arbitration (i.e. arbitration involving states or state-owned entities) just as it does in private arbitration. Highlighting how …

Cost–Benefit Analysis, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter will address the place of cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in constitutional law, by way of a case study. I’ll describe, and puzzle over, CBA’s absence from most U.S. constitutional doctrines, notwithstanding its major role in U.S. administrative law. The general questions that I seek to illuminate are by no means limited to the U.S. How might CBA figure within the tests that constitutional courts use to adjudicate alleged violations of constitutional rights? How might it serve to determine the structure of constitutional institutions? Would it be justified for CBA to play these doctrinal roles? But these general questions are …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

Prison Administrative Law, Erin Braatz

American University Law Review

This Article examines a matching pair of gaps in the legal literature on prisons and the administrative state. On the one hand, prison law focuses on constitutional protections for prisoners. As such, it emphasizes the minimum conditions the Constitution ensures for the nearly two million individuals currently incarcerated throughout the United States. What this focus misses, however, is the administrative nature of these institutions. With vast powers delegated to prison departments, prison law often fails to fully engage with the administrative nature of power and decision-making within prison departments. This administrative structure shapes the conditions that prevail inside American prisons. …

A New Cobell: The Need For A Continued Buy-Back Program, Liam C. Conrad

American Indian Law Journal

The General Allotment Act of 1887 divided Indian reservations into smaller plots for the supposed benefit of individual Indians. Today, these allotments are severely fractionated, with some 160-acre plots having as many as a thousand owners. Since allotment, Congress has repeatedly attempted to solve this problem. However, only the Cobell Land Buy-Back Program has made any sizeable impact on fractionation levels. This paper examines the fractionation problem and the Cobell Program. Now that the Cobell Program has ended in November 2022, this paper argues that Congress must quickly reauthorize a similar program or fractionation will soon exceed pre-Cobell levels.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Administrative And Federal Regulatory Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Andrew F. Popper

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

Amici write to address the first question presented: whether Chevron should be overruled. Properly understood, it should not. Chevron has been much discussed but not always understood. On the one hand, courts have sometimes misapplied the doctrine or failed to understand its legal foundations. On the other, courts and commentators alike have criticized Chevron, often as a result of such aggressive applications. This case provides an opportunity for the Court to clarify what Chevron does and does not entail, while reaffirming the essential role that judicial recognition of constitutionally delegated policymaking authority plays in federal statutory programs. Many of …

Movement On Removal: An Emerging Consensus On The First Congress, Jed Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

What did the “Decision of 1789” decide about presidential removal power, if anything? It turns out that an emerging consensus of scholars agrees that there was not much consensus in the First Congress.

Two more questions follow: Is the “unitary executive theory” based on originalism, and if so, is originalism a reliable method of interpretation based on historical evidence?

The unitary executive theory posits that a president has exclusive and “indefeasible” executive powers (i.e., powers beyond congressional and judicial checks and balances). This panel was an opportunity for unitary executive theorists and their critics to debate recent historical research questioning …

Populist Constitutionalism, Anya Bernstein, Glen Staszewski

Faculty Scholarship

A Supreme Court majority has expressed hostility to administrative agencies. Yet, as this Article explains, agencies provide the primary site in our government for pluralistic contestation among disparate policy views. A political vision we identify as agonistic republicanism—a convergence among deliberative democrats, republican theorists, and agonism supporters—places such multilateral deliberation and debate among differing social groups at the foundation of democracy. A contrary vision, authoritarian populism, imagines a single leader embodying the will of a unified people with little use for the institutional mediation of divergent perspectives. This view, prominent in politics, enters legal theory through the rhetoric of judicial …

A Theory Of Substantive Standards Of Review: The Case Of Corporate Law, Tomer S. Stein

Scholarly Works

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court limited deference to universities. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court reduced its deference to administrative agencies. In Coster v. UIP Cos., Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court limited deference to boards of directors, proclaimed a new standard of review, and then retracted the new standard of review (maybe). Common to these constitutional, administrative, and corporate law cases is unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency in the use and application of substantive standards of review. This doctrinal chaos is explicitly acknowledged by the very judges that formulate …

Why The Court Should Reexamine Administrative Law's Chenery Ii Doctrine, Gary S. Lawson, Joseph Postell

Faculty Scholarship

Part I of this article begins by discussing some fundamental constitutional principles that were raised, sometimes implicitly and indirectly, in the Chenery cases. Those principles point to limits on administrative adjudication that go well beyond those recognized in current doctrine. We do not here seek to push those principles as far as they can go, though we offer no resistance to anyone who wants to trod that path. Instead, we identify and raise those principles to help understand the scope and limits of actual doctrine. Our modest claims here are that constitutional concerns about at least some classes of agency …

Tracing The Roots Of A Poisonous Tree: On The Origins And Impact Of Criminal Terminology In A Civil Apprehension Scheme, Shani Mahiri King, Nicole Silvestri Hall

Articles (Current Faculty)

Language is powerful. It can affect how we think about and treat groups of people. Poor language choices have a massive impact on immigration law, an area of the law that determines how groups of perceived “outsiders” are classified and regulated. Language and bias in judicial opinions have been studied, but less research has been done on poor language choices in immigration statutes.

This Comment focuses on the harmful effects of poor language choices in immigration statutes, including the criminal terminology “arrest” and “warrant” in civil immigration apprehension statutes 8 U.S.C. Sections 1226 and 1357. Two fundamental problems arise when …

Foreword: New Supreme Court Cases: Duquesne Law Faculty Explains, Wilson Huhn

Law Faculty Publications

On September 30, 2022, several members of the faculty of the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University presented a Continuing Legal Education program, New Supreme Court Cases: Duquesne Law Faculty Explains, reviewing these developments. Duquesne Law Review graciously invited the faculty panel to contribute their analysis of these cases from the Supreme Court's 2021- 2022 term for inclusion in this symposium issue of the Law Review.

Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Mutually Intelligible Principles?, Andrew J. Ziaja

Pace Law Review

Are the nondelegation, major questions, and political question doctrines mutually intelligible? This article asks whether there is more than superficial resemblance between the nondelegation, major questions, and political question concepts in Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1 (1825), an early nondelegation case that has become focal in recent nondelegation and major questions scholarship and jurisprudence. I argue that the nondelegation and political question doctrines do interact conceptually in Wayman, though not as current proponents of the nondelegation doctrine on the Supreme Court seem to understand it. The major questions doctrine by contrast conscripts the nondelegation …

Decoding Nondelegation After Gundy: What The Experience In State Courts Tells Us About What To Expect When We're Expecting, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The nondelegation doctrine theoretically limits Congress’s ability to delegate legislative powers to the executive agencies that make up the modern administrative state. Yet, in practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has, since the New Deal, shied away from enforcing any limits on congressional delegation. That may change in the near future. In Gundy v. United States, the Court narrowly upheld a delegation, and a dissent signaled deep doubts about the Court’s longstanding “intelligible principle” standard and offered a new framework to replace it. Subsequent events strongly suggest that the Court is poised to move in the direction contemplated by the dissent …

What Does Effective Government Have To Do With The Constitution?, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Nearly a million people dead and counting. More than 77 million infected, a little less than one-fifth of the total infections worldwide. The United States has had more deaths than any other country, and its COVID-19 death rate of 276 per 100,000 people is the highest among the world’s wealthiest nations. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are hospitalized and die at significantly higher rates than whites. Some bright lights exist too, one being the speedy development of vaccines and their deployment in 2021 – although there, too, both the national government and the states have sometimes stumbled. Another is legislative …

Don’T “Estop” Me Now: Estoppel, Government Contract Law, And Sovereign Immunity If Congress Retroactively Repeals Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Michael J. Cole

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Article discusses whether Direct Loan borrowers can obtain recourse against the federal government using either promissory or equitable estoppel theories if Congress retroactively repeals the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (“PSLF”) program. The Article addresses various hurdles, including sovereign immunity and the Sovereign Acts Doctrine, which the borrowers would encounter at litigation. It concludes that, despite likely overcoming these hurdles, in many cases, the plaintiff-borrowers’ government contract law claims would likely still fail to win on their merits. The Article also contends that most, if not all, equitable estoppel claims would likely fail before a court. The Article then offers …

Violence And Nondelegation, Jacob D. Charles, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

Debates over delegation are experiencing a renaissance. These debates presuppose an initial distribution of constitutional authority between actors that cannot be redistributed, or that can be redistributed only according to some clear ex ante set of rules. Nondelegation in this sense often arises in debates about separation of powers and intergovernmental delegation, although scholars have begun applying the concept to delegations to private corporations and other private actors. The public delegation doctrine restricts one branch of government from transferring its constitutional authority to another branch, while the private delegation doctrine limits transfer of government power to private entities. In this …

Super Deference And Heightened Security, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Judicial review of federal agency action is systematically deferential. Such deference is arguably at its peak where agencies address scientific and highly technical matters within their area of expertise. This is what some call “super deference.” While there may be strong arguments for deferential review of agency scientific determinations as a general matter, there are reasons to question such deference when agency action implicates constitutional concerns. In particular, where agency actions trigger heightened scrutiny, such as occurs when agency actions intrude upon expressly enumerated or otherwise recognized fundamental rights or adopt constitutionally suspect classifications, courts should not apply traditional levels …

Removal Of Context: Blackstone, Limited Monarchy, And The Limits Of Unitary Originalism, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's recent decisions that the President has an unconditional or indefeasible removal power rely on textual and historical assumptions and a "removal of context." This article focuses on the "executive power" part of the Vesting Clause and particularly the unitary theorists' misuse of Blackstone. Unitary executive theorists overlook the problems of relying on England's limited monarchy: the era's rise of Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown and its power to eliminate or regulate (i.e., make defeasible) royal prerogatives. Unitary theorists provide no evidence that executive removal was ever identified as a "royal prerogative" or a default royal power. The …