“Saint George and the Dragon”: Courts and the Development of the Administrative State in Twentieth-Century America

Journal of Policy History

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 110-124

  Schiller, Reuel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956442798     PISSN: 08980306     EISSN: 15284190     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/jph.2005.0008     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. James M. Landis, The Administrative Process (New Haven, 1938), 123.
2. The Administrative Process
3. Louis L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action (Boston, 1965), 320.
4. See, for example, Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 394 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
5. Henry J. Friendly, “Some Kind of Hearing,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 123 (1975): 1311 n. 221.
6. See, for example, Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 (Cambridge, 1982), 24-31.
7. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 287, 289.
8. Richard B. Stewart, “The Reformation of American Administrative Law,” Harvard Law Review 88 (1975): 669
9. Robert L. Rabin, “Federal Regulation in Historical Perspective,” Stanford Law Review 38 (1986): 1189;
10. Thomas W. Merrill, “Capture Theory and the Courts: 1967-1983,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 72 (1997): 1039;
11. Martin Shapiro, Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Control of Administration (Athens, Ga. 1988)
12. Reuel E. Schiller, “Reining in the Administrative State,” in Daniel R. Ernst and Victor Jew, eds. Total War and the Law: The American Home Front in World War II (Westport, 2002), 185;
13. Idem, “Rulemaking's Promise: Administrative Law and Legal Culture in the 1960s and 1970s,” Administrative Law Review 53 (2001): 1139;
14. Idem, “Enlarging the Administrative Polity: Administrative Law and the Changing Definition of Pluralism, 1945-1970,” Vanderbilt Law Review 53 (2000): 1389.
15. For some prominent examples form the U.S. Supreme Court's docket, see Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (1898)
16. Ohio Water Valley v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U.S. 287 (1920)
17. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1930).
18. Landis, The Administrative Process, 154–55.
19. Ronen Shamir, Managing Legal Uncertainty: Elite Lawyers in the New Deal (Durham, 1995), 131-32.
20. See also George B. Shepherd, “Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics,” Northwestern Law Review 90 (1996): 1571-72.
21. Nicholas S. Zeppos, “The Legal Profession and the Development of Administrative Law,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 72 (1997): 1139-51.
22. Shamir, Managing Legal Uncertainty, 109–13;
23. Shepherd, “Fierce Compromise,” 1649–52;
24. Schiller, “Reining in the Administrative State,” 198–99.
25. Schiller, “Rulemaking's Promise,” 1139.
26. The ABA's critique was expressed most forcefully in the 1938 Annual Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law, chaired by Roscoe Pound. “Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law,” American Bar Association Annual Report (1938): 342.
27. For an account of the ABA's general hostility to administrative action, see Shepherd, “Fierce Compromise,” 1569–78.
28. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery, 332 U.S. 194, 216 (1947), (Jackson, J. dissenting).
29. See also Justice Douglas's opinion for the Court in Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 (1946).
30. Landis, The Administrative Process, 39.
31. Schiller, “Rulemaking's Promise,” 1166-68.
32. In addition to the materials cited in note 7, see G. Edward White, “Allocating Power Between Agencies and Courts: The Legacy of Justice Brandeis,” in G. Edward White, Patterns of American Legal Thought (Indianapolis, 1978), 227-87.
33. See, for example, Reuel E. Schiller, “Free Speech and Expertise: Administrative Censorship and the Birth of the Modern First Amendment,” Virginia Law Review 86 (2000): 1;
34. Charles W. McCurdy, “The Roots of Liberty of Contract Reconsidered: Major Premises in the Law of Employment, 1867-1937,” Yearbook of the Supreme Court Historical Society (1984): 20.
35. Daniel P. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928 (Princeton, 2001), 257-75.
36. Pure Food Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 768, 769, section 4;
37. Gustavus A. Weber, The Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration: Its History, Activities, and Organization (Baltimore, 1928), 41-43.
38. United States v. Twenty Cans of Grape Juice, 189 F. 331 (2d Cir. 1911)
39. United States v. Certain Cans of Syrup, 192 F. 79 (E.D. Penn 1911).
40. United States v. Morgan, 181 F. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1910)
41. Schraubstadter v. United States, 199 F. 568 (9th Cir. 1912).
42. United States v. Nine Barrels of Olives, 179 F. 983 (E.D.Penn. 1910)
43. United States v. Seventy-Four Cases of Grape Juice, 181 F. 629 (W.D.N.Y. 1910)
44. United States v. Fifty Barrels of Whiskey, 165 F. 966 (D.Md. 1908)
45. United States v. Sixty-Five Casks Liquid Extracts, 170 F. 449 (N.D. W.Va. 1909).
46. United States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274 (1911).
47. National Remedy Co. v. Hyde, 50 F.2d 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1931).
48. See, for example, United States v. St. Louis Coffee and Spice Mills, 189 F. 191 (E.D.Mo. 1909)
49. In re Wilson, 168 F. 566 (D.R.I. 1909)
50. United States v. Northwestern Fisheries, 224 F. 274 (W.D.Wash. 1915)
51. French Silver Dragee Co. v. United States, 179 F. 824 (2d Cir. 1910).
52. For a selection of essays on this subject by these and other authors, see Margaret Weir, Ann Shola Orloff, and Theda Skocpol, eds. The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton, 1988).
53. Ann Shola Orloff, “The Political Origins of America's Belated Welfare State,” in Weir, Orloff, and Skocpol, The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, 73–80.
54. Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod, Democracy by Decree: What Happens When Courts Run Government (New Haven, 2003).
55. Jerry L. Mashaw, Due Process and the Administrative State (New Haven, 1985), 32-41;
56. William H. Simon, “The Rule of Law and the Two Realms of Welfare Administration,” Brooklyn Law Review 56 (1990): 784-88.
57. Jerry L. Mashaw and David L. Harfst, The Struggle for Auto Safety (Cambridge, Mass. 1990).
58. Bruce A. Ackerman and William T. Hassler, Clean Coal, Dirty Air (New Haven, 1981), 111-14.
59. Ira Katznelson, “The State to the Rescue? Political Science and History Reconnect,” Social Research 59 (1992): 719;
60. Daniel R. Ernst, “Law and American Political Development, 1877-1938,” Reviews in American History 26 (1998): 205.
61. Herman Belz, “Changing Conceptions of Constitutionalism in the Era of World War II and the Cold War,” Journal of American History 59 (1972): 640, 641, 646-47
62. William E. Nelson, “The Changing Meaning of Equality in Twentieth-Century Constitutional Law,” Washington and Lee Law Review 52 (1995): 3, 21-28;
63. David M. Bixby, “The Roosevelt Court, Democratic Ideology, and Minority Rights: Another Look at United States v. Classic,” Yale Law Journal 90 (1981): 762-67;
64. Michael J. Klarman, “Brown, Racial Change, and the Civil Rights Movement,” Virginia Law Review 80 (1994): 25-26 and nn.73-75.
65. Schiller, “Reining in the Administrative State,” 196-99.
66. Schiller, “Enlarging the Administrative Polity,” 1417-42.
67. NLRB v. Sterling Electric Motors, 112 F.2d 63, 68 (9th Cir. 1940).
68. All three members of the panel, judges Denman, Mathews, and Healy, were Roosevelt appointees. Who's Who in America 21 (1940-1941): 755, 1209, 1713. Judge Healy dissented.
69. See, for example, Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 121-22 (majority opinion) and 131-32 (Murphy, concurring)
70. SEC v. Chenery, 332 U.S. 194, 216-17 (1947) (Jackson, J. dissenting)
71. New York v. United States, 342 U.S. 882, 884 (1951) (Douglas, J. dissenting).
72. John Chamberlain, The American Stakes (New York, 1940), 27.
73. John Kenneth Galbraith, American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power (Boston, 1956).
74. Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism (Chicago, 1967) (originally published in 1963), 287-305;
75. Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Mass. 1965), 132-67.
76. See also Schiller, “Enlarging the Administrative Polity,” 1411–12.
77. See, for example, Grant McConnell, Private Power and American Democracy (New York, 1966), 366-69;
78. Henry S. Kariel, The Decline of American Pluralism (Palo Alto, 1961), 273-91;
79. Edmond Cahn, The Predicament of Democratic Man (New York, 1961), 116;
80. E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (New York, 1960), 105, 141;
81. James McGregor Burns, The Deadlock of Democracy (Englewood Cliffs, 1963), 235-40, 323-40.
82. Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994 (D.C.Cir. 1965).
83. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 345 F.2d 608 (2d. Cir. 1965).
84. Palisades Citizens Ass'n v. CAB, 420 F.2d 188 (D.C.Cir. 1969).
85. Church of Christ, 1004–5.
86. See, for example, Lucy Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law (Chapel Hill, 1995).
87. Skowronek, Building a New American State, 259–67.