Administrative Law

Online
Article
The Truth of Erasure: Universal Remedies for Universal Agency Actions
T. Elliot Gaiser

T. Elliot Gaiser is the Solicitor General of Ohio. He previously clerked for Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., at the Supreme Court of the United States; for Judge Neomi Rao on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; and for Judge Edith H. Jones on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He holds a J.D. from The University of Chicago Law School and a B.A. in Political Economy and Rhetoric & Public Address from Hillsdale College.

Mathura Sridharan

Mathura J. Sridharan is the Director of Ohio’s Tenth Amendment Center and serves as a Deputy Solicitor General in the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. She previously clerked for Judge Steven J. Menashi on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge Deborah A. Batts on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. She holds a J.D. from New York University School of Law, and an M.Eng. in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science and Economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Nicholas Cordova

Nicholas A. Cordova is an associate at Boyden Gray PLLC and former Simon Karas Fellow to the Ohio Solicitor General. He previously clerked for Judge Paul B. Matey on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a B.A. in Political Science from Waynesburg University.

Courts, litigants, and scholars should not be confused by the ongoing debate about nationwide or so-called “universal” injunctions: the proper scope of remedies under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and other statutes providing for judicial review of agency action is “erasure.” This Article aims to save scholars’ recent progress in showing the legality of stays and vacatur under the APA from muddled thinking that conflates these forms of relief with other universal remedies that face growing criticism.

Online
Post
Lobbying Language: How Supreme Court Opinions Invite Legislative Change
Jack Brake
Jack Brake is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2025.

The author thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback. 

How often do Supreme Court opinions include what might be called “lobbying language,” which endorses a policy position while calling for another government entity to realize it? Reviewing relevant cases, this Essay finds that the sample set includes at least a dozen examples of lobbying language. As it turns out, lobbying is not so unusual for the Supreme Court.

Online
Essay
Agency Lumping and Splitting
Jennifer Nou
Jennifer Nou is a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Regulations, like other legal instruments, often arrive in lumps. An agency, for example, can issue a rule addressing many different subjects, each of which could be split off and issued as a separate regulation.

Print
Article
85.1
Sticky Regulations
Aaron L. Nielson
Associate Professor, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University

The author thanks Stephanie Bair, Jim Brau, Emily Bremer, Brigham Daniels, Daniel Hemel, David Moore, Carolina Núñez, Jarrod Shobe, Paul Stancil, Lisa Grow Sun, Christopher Walker, the participants in the 2017 Center for the Study of the Administrative State’s Research Roundtable on Rethinking Due Process and accompanying public policy conference held at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and the participants in the 2016 Rocky Mountain Junior Scholars Forum held at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah. Michael A. Stevens provided helpful research assistance. Financial support was provided by Brigham Young University and the Center for the Study of the Administrative State.

Modern administrative law is often said to present a dilemma.

2
Essay
75.1
Privacy Decisionmaking in Administrative Agencies
Kenneth A. Bamberger
Assistant Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law
Deirdre K. Mulligan
Clinical Professor of Law; Director, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic; Director, Clinical Program, UC Berkeley School of Law

Much appreciation to Colin Bennett, Malcolm Crompton, Peter Cullen, Lauren Edelman, Robert Gellman, Chris Hoofnagle, Robert Kagan, Jennifer King, Anne Joseph O’Connell, Fred B. Schneider, Ari Schwartz, Paul Schwartz, and the participants at The University of Chicago Law School’s Surveillance Symposium for insight, comment, and discussion; Nuala O’Connor Kelly and Peter Swire for consenting to be interviewed about their experience in privacy leadership roles within the United States government; Sara Terheggen, Marta Porwit Czajkowska, Rebecca Henshaw, and Andrew McDiarmid for their able research.

2
Article
75.2
The New Legal Realism
Thomas J. Miles
Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago
Cass R. Sunstein
Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor, The Law School and Department of Political Science, The University of Chicago

We are grateful to Susan Bandes, Elizabeth Foote, Jacob Gersen, Brian Leiter, Anup Malani, Richard McAdams, Elizabeth Mertz, Jonathan Nash, Eric Posner, Adam Samaha, Larry Solum, David Strauss, Noah Zatz, and participants in a work-inprogress lunch at The University of Chicago Law School for valuable comments. We are also grateful to the Chicago Judges Project, and in particular to Dean Saul Levmore, for relevant support.

2
Article
75.2
The Real World of Arbitrariness Review
Thomas J. Miles
Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago
Cass R. Sunstein
Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor, The Law School and Department of Political Science, The University of Chicago

We thank Eric Posner, Richard Posner, Peter Strauss, and Adrian Vermeule for helpful comments. We are also grateful to Rachael Dizard, Casey Fronk, Darius Horton, Matthew Johnson, Bryan Mulder, Brett Reynolds, Matthew Tokson, and Adam Wells for superb research assistance.

2
Article
75.3
Emergency Lawmaking after 9/11 and 7/7
Adrian Vermeule
Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

I wish to acknowledge a general debt of inspiration to Mark Tushnet’s studies of political controls on emergency powers, although my views differ from Tushnet’s. See generally, for example, Mark Tushnet, The Political Constitution of Emergency Powers: Some Lessons from Hamdan, 91 Minn L Rev 1451 (2007); Mark Tushnet, The Political Constitution of Emergency Powers: Parliamentary and Separation-of-Powers Regulation, 3 Intl J L in Context 275 (2008). For helpful comments, thanks to Jack Goldsmith, Eric Posner, Philip Rumney, Matthew Stephenson, Cass Sunstein, Mark Tushnet, workshop participants at Harvard Law School, and participants at a conference held at Harvard Law School to discuss Cass R. Sunstein, Worst-case Scenarios (Harvard 2007). Thanks to Elisabeth Theodore and Jennifer Shkabatur for helpful research assistance.

2
Article
75.4
The Unbundled Executive
Christopher R. Berry
Assistant Professor of Public Policy, The University of Chicago
Jacob E. Gersen
Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago

We are grateful to Bruce Ackerman, Rachel Brewster, Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, Bob Cooter, Rosalind Dixon, John Ferejohn, David Fontana, Heather Gerken, Tom Ginsburg, Dan Ho, Cheng-Yi Huang, Alison LaCroix, Daryl Levinson, John Matsusaka, Richard McAdams, Drew Navikas, Anne O’Connell, Eric Posner, Adam Samaha, Lior Strahilevitz, Madhavi Sunder, Cass Sunstein, Matthew Stephenson, and Adrian Vermeule for helpful comments and conversations. Johanna Chan, Monica Groat, Stacey Nathan, and Peter Wilson provided excellent research assistance. Financial support was provided by the John M. Olin Foundation and the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.