Administrative Law

Online
Essay
Taking Rulemaking Procedures Seriously in Bending the Rules
Rachel Augustine Potter
Rachel Augustine Potter (rapotter@virginia.edu @raugpott) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. Her research focuses on American political institutions, bureaucratic politics, and regulation.

Notice-and-comment rulemaking is often thought of as a fixed process: if agency X follows the process then it creates binding regulation Y.

Readingrecs
Print
Book review
85.8
How Not to Regulate
Lisa Heinzerling
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

In the earliest days of his presidency, Donald Trump issued an executive order that exemplifies a common attitude toward regulation today. President Trump ordered federal administrative agencies to revoke at least two regulations for every one they issued and to cut regulatory costs without considering the benefits lost.

Print
Comment
85.8
Waiving Chevron
Jeremy D. Rozansky
AB 2012, University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2019, University of Chicago Law School

I wish to thank William Baude, Brian Feinstein, Daniel Hemel, Aziz Huq, Aaron Nielson, Jennifer Nou, Adam J. White, and the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for setting me on the right track and improving the Comment at every stage

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc has been a boon for federal agencies.

Print
Comment
85.6
Not So Different after All: The Status of Interpretive Rules in the Medicare Act
Graham Haviland
BA 2011, The University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2019, The University of Chicago Law School

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) distinguishes between “legislative rules” that bind with the force of law and “interpretive rules” that merely interpret existing statutes or rules.

Print
Article
85.5
State Bureaucratic Undermining
Justin Weinstein-Tull
Associate Professor, Arizona State University College of Law

I am grateful to the readers who made this paper what it is, the teachers who gave more support than I deserve, and the friends who inexplicably saw brightness throughout.

Turbulence rocks the federal government, and it is now faddish to romanticize states as sites of resistance.

Print
Article
84.2
Chevron Step One-and-a-Half
Daniel J. Hemel
Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School

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.

Aaron L. Nielson
Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc has created a cottage industry in choreography.

Administrative Law Chevron Statutory Interpretation

Volumes