Agency Commons^™

Key

California Regulatory Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Challenging Agency Deregulation, Todd S. Aagaard

Faculty Publications

The administrative state is experiencing two seismic shifts. First, in recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that significantly curtailed the powers of administrative agencies. Second, President Donald Trump is using administrative agencies to aggressively deregulate in his second term. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court’s recent precedent will facilitate the Trump Administration’s deregulatory agenda.

This Article argues the opposite. Instead of promoting agency deregulation, recent Supreme Court precedent restraining agency authority provides a potentially powerful basis for challenging agency deregulation as administrative overreach. Time and time again, the Court has taken agencies to …

How The Proposed Esa Habitat Rule Harms Species On Public Lands, Sandi Zellmer

Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings

At present, there are 1,684 federally listed endangered and threatened species in the United States. Habitat modification is the primary reason for listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have proposed a rule that would rescind their decades-old definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Currently, “harm” is the only term within ESA Section 9’s prohibition on “take” that encompasses habitat modification. If modifying habitat is no longer a “take,” the ESA itself would be rendered incapable of satisfying Congress’s goal: “to halt and reverse the trend toward species …

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, …

The Law And Ai As An “Apex Collaborator”: Legal Frameworks For Optimized Cooperation, David S. Filippi, Bill Tomlinson, Andrew W. Torrance

FIU Law Review

Law fundamentally exists to enable human cooperation, providing frameworks for everything from basic contracts to complex international agreements. As artificial intelligence systems grow more sophisticated, they may enable new ways that collaborative activity can occur. We posit the possibility of a new kind of AI entity: the “Apex Collaborator,” a computational system with capabilities for cooperation and partnership that are superior, in at least some ways, to those of humans. Just as apex predators shape the ecosystems in which they live through predation, Apex Collaborators would shape human-AI networks through their ability to enhance peaceful coexistence, collective problem-solving, and shared …

From Chevron To Chaos: How Loper Is Redefining The Future Of Health Privacy, Skylar Johnson

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaking Free – The Legality Of The Ftc’S Fight Against Non-Competes, M. Akram Faizer

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vicarious Liability In Sexual Misconduct Cases In Minnesota, Mike Steenson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

Employers are vicariously liable for torts committed by their employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. The predominant test turns on whether the employee acted, at least in part, out of a desire to serve the employer’s interests. That test is problematic in cases involving intentional torts committed by an employee, particularly in sexual assault cases. Existing vicarious liability rules have been heavily criticized for the motive rule’s limiting effect, even where the nature of the employment may facilitate the tort. A minority of jurisdictions impose vicarious liability in cases where the tort is a characteristic risk …