Administrative Law Commons^™

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Why Corporate Boards Should Include Lgbtq+ People, Jeremy Mcclane, Darren Rosenblum

Seattle University Law Review

Corporate boardrooms sit at the heart of most of society’s most consequential decisions but fall far short of the diversity of our society. The current movement toward board diversification aims to remedy the underrepresentation of marginalized groups on corporate boards. More recently, some efforts have included LGBTQ+ people, even though the basis for their inclusion on corporate boards remains largely unstated. This Article examines both the normative and instrumental bases for LGBTQ+ inclusion in board diversity initiatives, articulating unspoken assumptions and linking LGBTQ+ people to the broader inclusion effort. In so doing, it begins to surface the unique issues LGBTQ+ …

Assessing Visions Of Democracy In Regulatory Policymaking, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Christopher J. Walker

Faculty Scholarship

Motivated in part by Congress’s failure to legislate, presidents in recent years seem to have turned even more to the regulatory process to make major policy. It is perhaps no coincidence that the field of administrative law has similarly seen a resurgence of scholarship extolling the virtues of democratic accountability in the modern administrative state. Some scholars have even argued that bureaucracy is as much as if not more democratically legitimate than Congress, either in the aggregative or deliberative sense, or both.

In our contribution to this Ensuring Democratic Accountability in the Administrative State Symposium, we make a modest intervention …

Food And Drug Regulation: Statutory And Regulatory Supplement (2023), Adam I. Muchmore

Faculty Scholarship

This Statutory and Regulatory Supplement is intended for use with its companion casebook, Food and Drug Regulation: A Statutory Approach (2021). This is not a traditional statutory supplement. Instead, it contains selected, aggressively edited provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), related statutes, and the Code of Federal Regulations. The Supplement includes all provisions assigned as reading in the casebook, as well as a few additional provisions that some professors may wish to cover. The excerpts are designed to be teachable rather than

The Exoskeleton Of Environmental Law: Why The Breadth, Depth And Longevity Of Environmental Law Matters For Judicial Review, Sanne H. Knudsen

Articles

Environmental law is pragmatic, inevitable, and intentional. In the aggregate, the numerous federal environmental statutes are not simply a patchwork of ad hoc responses or momentary political breakthroughs to isolated public health problems and resource concerns. Together, they are a group of repeated, legislatively-backed commitments to embrace self-restraint for self-preservation.

Self-restraint and discipline are the essence of environmental law. Indeed, if one studies the patterns and repeated choices in environmental law 's many statutory texts, one can start to appreciate environmental law 's indispensable role in society: it serves as an enduring "exoskeleton," a sort of protective armor created over …

Public Engagement, Equity, And Executive Order 14,094., Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

Executive Order 14,094 ("the Order"), signed by President Biden in April, 2023, breaks ground to make regulatory decisionmaking more equitable and inclusive, continuing a theme the Biden Presidency began with Executive Order 13,985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Agencies must, of course, hear from those who are regulated, but genuinely equitable decisionmaking also requires agencies to hear and engage the concerns of affected individuals and communities, including underserved communities. This recognizes that many Americans have a distinct and substantial interest in the benefits promised by legislatively created regulatory programs, whether those include safe …

Re-Regulating Dietary Supplements, Jessie L. Bekker, Alex Flores, Michael S. Sinha

All Faculty Scholarship

In 1994, Congress introduced the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to create a regulatory framework for the dietary supplement industry. Since the passage of DSHEA nearly thirty years ago, U.S. adults have steadily increased their annual consumption of dietary supplements. The once $4 billion industry comprising approximately 4,000 products has swelled to a $40 billion trade with anywhere from 50,000 to 80,000 dietary supplements available over-the-counter.

Despite the increased market size of dietary supplements, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) pre-market authority to regulate the introduction of dietary supplements into the stream of commerce has remained subdued. Under …

Outsourcing Self-Regulation, Marsha Griggs

All Faculty Scholarship

Answerable only to the courts that have the sole authority to grant or withhold the right to practice law, lawyers operate under a system of self-regulation. The self-regulated legal profession staunchly resists external interference from the legislative and administrative branches of government. Yet, with the same fervor that the legal profession defies non-judicial oversight, it has subordinated itself to the controlling influence of a private corporate interest. By outsourcing the mechanisms that control admission to the bar, the legal profession has all but surrendered the most crucial component of its gatekeeping function to an industry that profits at the expense …

The National Security Consequences Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Timothy Meyer, Ganesh Sitaraman

Faculty Scholarship

The rise of the major questions doctrine—the rule that says that in order to delegate to the executive branch the power to resolve a “question of ‘deep economic and political significance’ that is central to [a] statutory scheme,” Congress must do so expressly—threatens to unmake the modern executive’s authority over foreign affairs, especially in matters of national security and interstate conflict. In the twenty-first century, global conflicts increasingly involve economic warfare, rather than (or in addition to) the force of arms.

In the United States, the executive power to levy economic sanctions and engage in other forms of economic warfare …

The Ghosts Of Chevron Present And Future, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

In the October 2021 term, the Supreme Court decided six cases involving federal agency interpretations of statutes, at least five of which seemingly implicated the Chevron doctrine and several of which explicitly turned on applications of Chevron in the lower courts. But while the Chevron doctrine has dominated federal administrative law for nearly four decades, not a single majority opinion during the term even cited Chevron. Three of those cases formalized the so-called “major questions” doctrine, which functions essentially as an anti-Chevron doctrine by requiring clear congressional statements of authority to justify agency action on matters of great legal and …

The Diffuse Executive, Anya Bernstein, Cristina Rodriguez

Faculty Scholarship

A unitary executive is an exacting ideal. It asks that all power in an administration be gathered in the person of the President, who should have full authority to determine the actions of officials and employees. Even if the President does not directly control every executive action (how could he?), when officials fail to implement presidential preferences, the unitary theory dictates that the President must have the power to remove them. The model posits a tightly organized hierarchy—every rung implementing the substantive decisions of the rung above, with orders flowing from the top: a command-and-control structure for government action. And, …

Amicus Brief In Sec V. Jarkesy On Original Public Meaning Of Article Ii & Presidential Removal, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

In holding that the SEC’s administrative law judges’ protections against removal were unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit extended Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 447 (2010), and Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020). Those precedents were based on an incomplete historical record. Subsequent historical research shows that the Founding generation never understood Article II to grant the President an indefeasible removal power.

To be sure, this evidence does not suggest Congress should have unlimited power to protect any executive office or delegate removal to itself. Rather, the bottom line is that the evidence of original public …

Major Problems With The Major Questions Doctrine: The Impact Of West Virginia V. Epa On Environmental Regulations And Judicial Review, Holman Pettibone

CMC Senior Theses

This paper examines the historical and ongoing relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Supreme Court, with a focus on West Virginia v. EPA (2022). In West Virginia, the Court ruled that the EPA lacks the authority to implement the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, invoking the "major questions doctrine." Since 1984, the Court has used "Chevron deference" to guide its rulings on administrative action, which requires judges to defer to the administrative agency if its interpretation is reasonable, and the statute is ambiguous. West Virginia and the major questions doctrine put the future of Chevron deference …

Can A Tribunal’S Former Counsel Appear Before The Tribunal? A Comment On Certain Container Chassis, Andrew Martin

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Lawyer mobility has been recognized as an important but not determinative consideration in legal ethics, particularly when it comes to conflicts of interest. Mobility poses particular issues for counsel to a tribunal. Those counsel may well at some point leave that position and pursue other opportunities. Prospective opportunities may sometimes involve appearing as counsel for a party before the same tribunal – especially where the tribunal operates in a highly specialized area of law. Can a lawyer appear before a tribunal if they were previously counsel to that tribunal? This discrete issue, though it rarely arises in the case law, …

Can A Tribunal’S Former Counsel Appear Before The Tribunal? A Comment On Certain Container Chassis, Andrew Martin

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Lawyer mobility has been recognized as an important but not determinative consideration in legal ethics, particularly when it comes to conflicts of interest. Mobility poses particular issues for counsel to a tribunal. Those counsel may well at some point leave that position and pursue other opportunities. Prospective opportunities may sometimes involve appearing as counsel for a party before the same tribunal – especially where the tribunal operates in a highly specialized area of law. Can a lawyer appear before a tribunal if they were previously counsel to that tribunal? This discrete issue, though it rarely arises in the case law, …

Affirmatively Resisting, Ezra Rosser

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This Article argues that administrative processes, in particular rulemaking’s notice-and-comment requirement, enable local institutions to fight back against federal deregulatory efforts. Federalism all the way down means that state and local officials can dissent from within when challenging federal action. Drawing upon the ways in which localities, states, public housing authorities, and fair housing nonprofits resisted the Trump Administration’s efforts to roll back federal fair housing enforcement, this Article shows how uncooperative federalism works in practice.

Despite the fact that the 1968 Fair Housing Act requires that the federal government affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), the requirement was largely ignored …

Climate Choice Architecture, Felix Mormann

Faculty Scholarship

Personal choices drive global warming nearly as much as institutional decisions. Yet, policymakers overwhelmingly target large-scale industrial facilities for reductions in carbon emissions, with individual and household emissions a mere afterthought. Recent advances in behavioral economics, cognitive psychology, and related fields have produced a veritable behavior change revolution. Subtle changes to the choice environment, or nudges, have improved stake-holder decision-making in a wide range of contexts, from healthier food choices to better retirement planning. But the vast potential of choice architecture remains largely untapped for purposes of climate policy and action. This Article explores that untapped potential and makes the …

The Failure Of Market Efficiency, William Magnuson

Faculty Scholarship

Recent years have witnessed the near total triumph of market efficiency as a regulatory goal. Policymakers regularly proclaim their devotion to ensuring efficient capital markets. Courts use market efficiency as a guiding light for crafting legal doctrine. And scholars have explored in great depth the mechanisms of market efficiency and the role of law in promoting it. There is strong evidence that, at least on some metrics, our capital markets are indeed more efficient than they have ever been. But the pursuit of efficiency has come at a cost. By focusing our attention narrowly on economic efficiency concerns—such as competition, …

The Environmental Democracy That Was, Then Wasn't, But Could Be Again, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

Over the 50 years since former EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus wrote The Citizen and the Environmental Regulatory Process, much has changed. On the one hand, participation in environmental regulatory decisionmaking has flourished, but on the other, Ruckelshaus's prediction of growing consensus around the environmental movement has proven illusory. In this short essay reflecting on participation in environmental regulatory decisionmaking, I highlight what Ruckelshaus was right about and, just as importantly, where his vision of environmental participatory governance might need some updating. Looking back at the dawn of environmental democracy in the regulatory process and comparing it to the …

Beyond Removal, Jane Manners

Fordham Law Review

The contemporary debate over presidential power often assumes that removal is the primary tool through which a President exercises control over executive branch officers to fulfill the Constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This must be so, the logic goes, because without this authority, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities.” The power to remove, the U.S. Supreme Court has reasoned, also endows the President with the power to supervise. To be sure, other scholars and jurists have pointed out the ways that this fails to capture the range …

Representing Noncitizens In The Context Of Legal Instability And Adverse Detention Precedent, Nancy Morawetz

Fordham Law Review

This Essay addresses three structural aspects of immigration law that have shifted in recent years and present important challenges for delivering adequate representation. Although the Katzmann study group’s many initiatives have shored up access to counsel in immigration courts and for immigration applications, the ground has been shifting under our feet. This Essay discusses three (of many) phenomena that make it harder than ever to lawyer on behalf of noncitizens. The first is the rise of red-state lawsuits that lead to enormous unpredictability about the agency rules under which lawyers can expect to operate. The second is the individuation and …

The Judicial Assault On The Administrative State Regulating Upheavals In The Securities Markets And Boardrooms, Joel Seligman

Scholarship@WashULaw

The most substantial change in the United States Government has been the extraordinary growth and increased complexity of the United States Government itself. George Washington initially was President of a country with a population of about four million, eleven States, and three Cabinet Departments (State, Treasury, and War). Washington’s Government had no standing army, no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, and no programs addressing the environment, labor, or health. In 1791, the Treasury Department had approximately 500 employees, the War Department had 12, the State Department, 8.

Today, the National Government has twenty-four Cabinet members. In 2023, there are 2.89 …

Becoming The Administrator-In-Chief: Myers And The Progressive Presidency, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Roseblum

Scholarship@WashULaw

In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court has mounted an assault on the administrative state, guided by a particular vision of Article II. According to the Court’s scheme, known as the theory of the unitary executive, all of government’s operations must be housed under one of three branches, with the single head of the executive branch shouldering a unique and personal responsibility for the administration of federal law. The Constitution is thus said to require that the President have expansive authority to supervise or control the government’s many agencies.

Guiding each of the Court’s recent decisions is Myers …

Rethinking Innovation At Fda, Rachel Sachs, W. Nicholson Price Ii, Patricia J. Zettler

Scholarship@WashULaw

In several controversial drug approval decisions in recent years, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has publicly justified its decision partly on the ground that approving the drugs in question would support innovation in those fields going forward. To some observers, these arguments were surprising, as the agency’s determination whether a drug is “safe” and “effective” does not seem to depend on whether its approval also supports innovation. But FDA’s use of these innovation arguments in drug approval decisions is just one example of the ways in which the agency has come to make many innovation-related judgments as part of …

Vacatur, Nationwide Injunctions, And The Evolving Apa, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

The courts’ growing use of universal or nationwide injunctions to invalidate agency rules that they find to be unlawful has given rise to concern that such injunctions circumvent dialogue among the circuits, promote forum-shopping, and leave too much power in the hands of individual judges. Some scholars, joined by the Department of Justice, have argued that such judicial decisions should be limited through restrictive interpretations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

This article takes issue with these authorities. It argues that the courts’ use of the APA to vacate a rule as a whole—as opposed to merely enjoining application of …

Congress's Anti-Removal Power, Christopher J. Walker, Aaron Nielson

Articles

Statutory restrictions on presidential removal of agency leadership enable agencies to act independently from the White House. Yet since 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court has held two times that such restrictions are unconstitutional precisely because they prevent the President from controlling policymaking within the executive branch. Recognizing that a supermajority of the Justices now appears to reject or at least limit the principle from Humphrey’s Executor that Congress may prevent the President from removing agency officials based on policy disagreement, scholars increasingly predict that the Court will soon further weaken agency independence if not jettison it altogether.

This Article challenges …

The Early Years Of Congress’S Anti-Removal Power, Aaron Nielson, Christopher J. Walker

Articles

Judges and scholars have long debated whether the Constitution provides the President with a power to remove executive officials. The Constitution, however, undoubtedly gives Congress tools to discourage the President’s use of such power. Perhaps most notably, the Appointments Clause makes it more difficult for the President to remove principal officers—even those whose views are out of the step with the President’s—because the President cannot know whether the Senate will consent to a preferred replacement. This is an example of what we dub Congress’s anti-removal power: Even if the President can remove, a motivated Congress can discourage the President’s use …

Responding To The New Major Questions Doctrine, Christopher J. Walker

Articles

The new major questions doctrine has been a focal point in administrative law scholarship and litigation over the past year. One overarching theme is that the doctrine is a deregulatory judicial power grab from both the executive and legislative branches. It limits the president’s ability to pursue a major policy agenda through regulation. And in the current era of political polarization, Congress is unlikely to have the capacity to pass legislation to provide the judicially required clear authorization for agencies to regulate major questions. Especially considering the various “vetogates” imposed by Senate and House rules, it is fair to conclude …

Interpreting The Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review, Christopher J. Walker

Articles

The modern administrative state has changed substantially since Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946. Yet Congress has done little to modernize the APA in those intervening seventy-seven years. That does not mean the APA has remained unchanged. Federal courts have substantially refashioned the APA’s requirements for administrative procedure and judicial review of agency action. Perhaps unsurprisingly, calls to return to either the statutory text or the original meaning (or both) have intensified in recent years. “APA originalism” projects abound.

As part of the Notre Dame Law Review’s Symposium on the History of the Administrative Procedure Act and …

Assessing Visions Of Democracy In Regulatory Policymaking, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Christopher J. Walker

Articles

Motivated in part by Congress’s failure to legislate, presidents in recent years seem to have turned even more to the regulatory process to make major policy. It is perhaps no coincidence that the feld of administrative law has similarly seen a resurgence of scholarship extolling the virtues of democratic accountability in the modern administrative state. Some scholars have even argued that bureaucracy is as much as if not more democratically legitimate than Congress, either in the aggregative or deliberative sense, or both.