Administrative Law
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.
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.
I appreciate helpful conversations with Daniel Carpenter, Michele Dauber, John Ferejohn, George Fisher, Rich Ford, Lawrence Friedman, David Golove, Jill Hasday, Daniel Ho, Don Hornstein, Lewis Kornhauser, David Luban, Eric Muller, Hari Osofsky, Robert Tsai, and Barry Weingast, as well as feedback from workshop participants at Berkeley, Iowa, Oregon, NYU, North Carolina, Southwestern, and Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. David Kennedy provided extremely helpful written comments on an earlier version of this Article. I also benefited greatly from the research assistance of Mindy Jeng, Shivan Saran, Britt Grant, Mrinal Menon, Connor Raso, Brad Hansen, and Jennifer Liu, as well as the staff of the Stanford Law School Library. I am also grateful to the staff at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, and the Harry S. Truman Library. All of these people should be secure in the knowledge that they are not responsible for any errors or omissions. This is dedicated to Mateo, Ria, and Lucy.
Very useful comments were provided by Ken Bamberger, Eric Biber, Tino Cuéllar, Dan Farber, Jesse Shapiro, Matthew Stephenson, Adrian Vermeule, and John Yoo. Financial support has been provided by the Hellman Family Faculty Fund, the Boalt Hall Fund, UC Berkeley’s Committee on Research, and the Jerome Kutak Fund at The University of Chicago Law School. Thanks to Tess Hand-Bender, Roman Giverts, Monica Groat, Edna Lewis, Harry Moren, Stacey Nathan, and John Yow for research assistance. An earlier version of this Article was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Law and Economics Association and in the UC Berkeley’s Center for the Study of Law and Society’s Speaker Series.
Thanks to Kevin Davis, Paul Kelly, Geoffrey Miller, Cass Sunstein, students in a Harvard Law School reading group on the Theory of the Administrative State, and audiences at the London School of Economics, NYU Law School and Tel Aviv Law School for helpful comments, and to Elisabeth Theodore for excellent research assistance.
For helpful comments, thanks are owed to Michael Asimow, Frederic Bloom, Ann Carlson, Joshua Civin, Sharon Dolovich, Jerry Kang, Sung Hui Kim, Allison Orr Larson, Toni Michaels, Hiroshi Motomura, Susan Rose-Ackerman, Steven Schooner, Seana Shiffrin, Kirk Stark, David Super, Eugene Volokh, Stephen Yeazell, and Noah Zatz. Tal Grietzer, Joshua Mandlebaum, Laura Podolsky, Ira Steinberg, Cathy Yu, and the staff of the UCLA Law Library provided invaluable assistance. I am grateful also to the participants at the 2009 Southern California Junior Faculty Workshop at Pepperdine Law School, the 2010 Berkeley-UCLA Junior Faculty Exchange, the Chapman University School of Law Colloquium, as well as to the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review. This Article is dedicated to Anneliese Beth, who was born during the drafting of this project.
For comments, I am grateful to Kristen Boon, Curt Bradley, Stephen Burbank, Cary Coglianese, Bill Ewald, Oona Hathaway, Sophia Lee, Zach Price, Beth Simmons, the editors of the University of Chicago Law Review, and participants at the 2016 Yale-Duke Foreign Relations Law Roundtable, the University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty retreat, and the Seton Hall University School of Law faculty workshop. For assistance with sources, I thank Gabriela Femenia of the Penn Law Library.
In his farewell address, George Washington urged that “[t]he great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is . . . to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
For helpful comments, the authors thank Nicholas Bagley, Aditya Bamzai, William Baude, Omri Ben-Shahar, Ryan Doerfler, Richard Epstein, Matthew Etchemendy, Lee Fennell, Margot Kaminski, Robin Kar, Genevieve Lakier, Ronald Levin, Jonathan Masur, Richard McAdams, Jennifer Nou, Michael Pollack, Eric Posner, Richard Posner, John Rappaport, Peter Shane, Paul Stancil, Nicholas Stephanopoulos, David Strauss, Lisa Grow Sun, Christopher Walker, and the participants at workshops at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, the J. Reuben Clark Law School, and The University of Chicago Law School. An Online Appendix detailing Chevron Step One-and-a-Half cases is available on The University of Chicago Law Review’s website. All errors are strategic.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc has created a cottage industry in choreography.
Volumes
- Volume 92.4June2025
- Volume 92.3May2025
- Volume 92.2March2025
- Volume 92.1January2025
- Volume 91.8December2024
- Volume 91.7November2024
- Volume 91.6October2024
- Volume 91.5September2024
- Volume 91.4June2024
- Volume 91.3May2024
- Volume 91.2March2024
- Volume 91.1January2024
- Volume 90.8December2023
- Volume 90.7November2023
- Volume 90.6October2023
- Volume 90.5September2023
- Volume 90.4June2023
- Volume 90.3May2023
- Volume 90.2March2023
- Volume 90.1January2023
- Volume 89.8December2022
- Volume 89.7November2022
- Volume 89.6October2022
- Volume 89.5September2022
- Volume 89.4June2022
- Volume 89.3May2022
- Volume 89.2March2022
- Volume 89.1January2022
- Volume 88.8December2021
- v88.6October2021
- v88.4June2021
- v88.3May2021
- 87.1January2020
- 84.4Fall2017
- 84.3Summer2017
- 84.2Spring2017
- 84.1Winter2017
- 84 SpecialNovember2017
- 81.3Summer2014
- 80.1Winter2013
- 78.1Winter2011