Superstatute theory and administrative common law

Indiana Law Journal

Volumn 90, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 1207-1260

  Kovacs, Kathryn E ^a  

^a Rutgers School of Law   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920960808     PISSN: 00196665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (208)

1. See Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson, The Unitary Executive, Jurisdiction Stripping, and the Hamdan Opinions: A Textualist Response to Justice Scalia, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1002, 1010 (2007)
2. William N. Eskridge, Jr. & John Ferejohn, Constitutional Horticulture: Deliberation-Respecting Judicial Review, 87 TEX. L. REV. 1273, 1281-82 (2009) [hereinafter Eskridge and Ferejohn, Constitutional Horticulture]
3. Peter L. Strauss, The Place of Agencies in Government: Separation of Powers and the Fourth Branch, 84 COLUM. L. REV. 573, 576-77 (1984).
4. George B. Shepherd, Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics, 90 NW. U. L. REV. 1557, 1561 (1996).
5. See Bruce Ackerman, The Emergency Constitution, 113 YALE L.J. 1029, 1077 (2004)
6. William R. Andersen, Chevron in the States: An Assessment and a Proposal, 58 ADMIN. L. REV. 1017, 1033 (2006)
7. Michael Asimow, The Spreading Umbrella: Extending the APA's Adjudication Provisions to All Evidentiary Hearings Required by Statute, 56 ADMIN. L. REV. 1003, 1004 (2004)
8. Jerry L. Mashaw, Federal Administration and Administrative Law in the Gilded Age, 119 YALE L. J. 1362, 1365 (2010)
9. Thomas W. Merrill, Capture Theory and the Courts: 1967-1983, 72 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 1039, 1039 (1997).
10. Jack M. Beermann & Gary Lawson, Reprocessing Vermont Yankee, 75 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 856, 874 (2007).
11. LOUIS L. JAFFE, JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 327-29, 336-37, 372 (1965)
12. See generally WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR. & JOHN FEREJOHN, A REPUBLIC OF STATUTES: THE NEW AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (2010) [hereinafter ESKRIDGE & FEREJOHN, REPUBLIC]
13. William N. Eskridge, Jr. & John Ferejohn, Super-Statutes, 50 DUKE L.J. 1215 (2000) [hereinafter Eskridge & Ferejohn, Super-Statutes]
14. William N. Eskridge, Jr., America's Statutory "constitution," 41 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1 (2007)
15. See, e.g., Paul Frymer, Statutes, Courts, and Democracy in America, 47 TULSA L. REV. 229, 234 (2011)
16. Leslie Gielow Jacobs, Growing a Constitution, 27 CONST. COMMENT. 647, 654 (2011) (book review) ("inspiring")
17. Robert A. Katzmann, Introduction to The Yale Law Journal Online Symposium on Eskridge and Ferejohn's A Republic of Statutes: The New American Constitution, 120 YALE L.J. ONLINE 293, 293 (2011), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/introduction-to-the-yale-law-journal-online-symposium-on-eskridge-and-ferejohns-a-republic-of-statutes-the-new-american-constitution ("landmark collaboration")
18. Mathew D. McCubbins & Daniel B. Rodriguez, Superstatutory Entrenchment: A Positive and Normative Interrogatory, 120 YALE L. J. ONLINE 387, 406 (2011), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/superstaturoty-entenchment-a-positive-and-normative-interrogatory ("an admirable-indeed historic-effort at big-picture legal theory")
19. Edward L. Rubin, How Statutes Interpret the Constitution, 120 YALE L.J. ONLINE 297, 298 (2011), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/how-statutes-interpret-the-constitution ("a major contribution")
20. Glen Staszewski, Constitutional Dialogue in a Republic of Statutes, 2010 MICH. ST. L. REV. 837, 862 ("important").
21. Antonin Scalia, Vermont Yankee: The APA, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court, 1978 SUP. CT. REV. 345, 363.
22. E.g., Richard Albert, Nonconstitutional Amendments, 22 CAN. J. L. & JURIS. 5, 18 (2009)
23. Eric Berger, Individual Rights, Judicial Deference, and Administrative Law Norms in Constitutional Decision Making, 91 B.U. L. REV. 2029, 2054 (2011)
24. David S. Law, Generic Constitutional Law, 89 MINN. L. REV. 652, 675-76 (2005)
25. John C. Roberts & Erwin Chemerinsky, Entrenchment of Ordinary Legislation: A Reply to Professors Posner and Vermeule, 91 CALIF. L. REV. 1773, 1816 n.151 (2003)
26. Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Libertarian Administrative Law, 81 U. CHI. L. REV. 393, 466 (2015)
27. see also Lawrence Solum, Gluck on Entrenched Canons of Statutory Interpretation, LEGAL THEORY BLOG (April 1, 2013, 12:15 p.m.), http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2013/04/gluck-on-entrenched-canons-of-statutory-interpretation.html.
28. Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Common Law and the Vermont Yankee Opinion, 1980 UTAH L. REV. 3, 3 [hereinafter Davis, Administrative Common Law]
29. Gillian E. Metzger, Annual Review of Administrative Law-Foreword: Embracing Administrative Common Law, 80 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1293, 1293 (2012)
30. see also Emily S. Bremer, The Unwritten Administrative Constitution, 66 FLA. L. REV. 1215, 1246 (2014)
31. John F. Duffy, Administrative Common Law in Judicial Review, 77 TEX. L. REV. 113, 115 (1998).
32. Adrian Vermeule, Superstatutes, NEW REPUBLIC (Oct. 26, 2010), http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/superstatutes
33. see also Gillian E. Metzger, Ordinary Administrative Law as Constitutional Common Law, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 479, 512 (2010)
34. Abbe R. Gluck, The Federal Common Law of Statutory Interpretation: Erie for the Age of Statutes, 54 WM. & MARY L. REV. 753, 798, 811 (2013).
35. Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 27, 32 (1990).
36. See Thomas Field, Craig Allen Nard & John Duffy, Dickinson v. Zurko: An Amicus Brief, 4 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 49, 71 (2000).
37. ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, FEDERAL JURISDICTION § 6.1, at 367 (5th ed. 2007)
38. cf. Thomas W. Merrill, The Common Law Powers of Federal Courts, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1, 5 (1985)
39. Richard W. Murphy, Hunters for Administrative Common Law, 58 ADMIN. L. REV. 917, 920 n.16 (2006).
40. See Jack M. Beermann, Common Law and Statute Law in Administrative Law, 63 ADMIN. L. REV. 1, 3 (2011)
41. Ronald M. Levin, "Vacation" at Sea: Judicial Remedies and Equitable Discretion in Administrative Law, 53 DUKE L.J. 291 (2003).
42. cf. Adrian Vermeule, Our Schmittian Administrative Law, 122 HARV. L. REV. 1095, 1118-21, 1134 (2009)
43. Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 154 (1993) (emphasis in original) (discussing 5 U.S.C. § 704 (1992)).
44. See Kathryn E. Kovacs, Leveling the Deference Playing Field, 90 OR. L. REV. 583, 600-03 (2011) [hereinafter Kovacs, Leveling]
45. see also Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2537 (2011)
46. Kathryn E. Kovacs, A History of the Military Authority Exception in the Administrative Procedure Act, 62 ADMIN. L. REV. 673, 697, 700-01 (2010)
47. See Indep. Acceptance Co. v. California, 204 F.3d 1247, 1248 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000)
48. Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 745 F.2d 677, 683-84 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
49. Emily Hammond Meazell, Super Deference, the Science Obsession, and Judicial Review as Translation of Agency Science, 109 MICH. L. REV. 733, 740 (2011)
50. Patricia M. Wald, Judicial Review in Midpassage: The Uneasy Partnership Between Courts and Agencies Plays On, 32 TULSA L.J. 221, 232 n.70, 233 (1996).
51. Lisa Schultz Bressman & Abbe R. Gluck, Statutory Interpretation from the Inside-An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons: Part II, 66 STAN. L. REV. 725, 753-54 (2014) [hereinafter Bressman & Gluck, Part II] (discussing those results).
52. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967).
53. Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 154 (1993).
54. see also Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003)
55. Nicholas Bagley, The Puzzling Presumption of Reviewability, 127 HARV. L. REV. 1285, 1320-21 (2014).
56. Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
57. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-45.
58. Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476, 483 n.7 (2011).
59. 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1880 (2013) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (emphasis in original). Perhaps Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts read Peter Strauss's article contending that Chevron merely expanded NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111 (1944)
60. Peter L. Strauss, Overseers or "The Deciders"-the Courts in Administrative Law, 75 U. CHI. L. REV. 815, 818 (2008).
61. See Thomas W. Merrill & Kristin E. Hickman, Chevron's Domain, 89 GEO. L.J. 833, 868-72 (2001)
62. But see Mark Seidenfeld, Chevron's Foundation, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 273, 279-88 (2011)
63. Patrick J. Smith, Chevron's Conflict with the Administrative Procedure Act, 32 VA. TAX REV. 813 (2013).
64. See Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 524, 545-46 (1978) (discussing legislative history).
65. Am. Radio Relay League v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 245-46 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("[T]he Portland Cement doctrine cannot be squared with the text of § 553 of the APA.")
66. Peter L. Strauss, Statutes That Are Not Static-The Case of the APA, 14 J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 767, 796-98 (2005) (arguing that the Freedom of Information Act reshaped the meaning of the notice provisions in § 553).
67. see also Lisa Schultz Bressman, Procedures as Politics in Administrative Law, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1749, 1788 (2007)
68. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n v. Harris, 720 F.3d 966 (D.C. Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S. Ct. 2820 (2014)
69. Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 546 (1978).
70. Eugene Gressman & Angela C. Carmella, The RFRA Revision of the Free Exercise Clause, 57 OHIO ST. L.J. 65, 111 (1996)
71. Stephen M. Griffin, The Problem of Constitutional Change, 70 TUL. L. REV. 2121, 2141 (1996)
72. Michael W. McConnell, The Forgotten Constitutional Moment, 11 CONST. COMMENT. 115, 142 (1994)
73. Henry Paul Monaghan, Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 723, 770 n.266 (1988)
74. Max Radin, The Myth of Magna Carta, 60 HARV. L. REV. 1060, 1075 (1947).
75. Bruce Ackerman, The Living Constitution, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1737, 1753 n.38 (2007)
76. The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73
77. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1982 (2012))
78. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012))
79. The Norris-La Guardia Act, ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70 (codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-115 (2012))
80. The Securities Act of 1933, Pub. L. No. 73-22, 48 Stat. 74 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a-77bbbb (2012))
81. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-291, 48 Stat. 881 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a-78lll (2012))
82. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Pub. L. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449 (codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (2012))
83. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Pub. L. 75-718, 52 Stat. 1060 (codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-205 (2012))
84. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, Pub. L. No. 75-717, 52 Stat. 1040 (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. § 301 (2012))
85. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5, 28, and 42 U.S.C. (2012))
86. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 52 U.S.C. (2012))
87. The Clean Air Act, Pub. L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392 (1970) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7642 (2012))
88. The Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (1972) (codified as amended at 13 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 (2012))
89. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (2012))
90. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-3, 107 Stat. 6 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (2012))
91. cf. Gillian E. Metzger, Administrative Constitutionalism, 91 TEX. L. REV. 1897 (2013)
92. WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., DYNAMIC STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 30-31 (1994).
93. But see Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (invaliding coverage formula in section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act).
94. See, e.g., Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935) (striking down the Frazier-Lemke Act)
95. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) (invalidating regulations issued under the National Industrial Recovery Act).
96. Walter Gellhorn, The Administrative Procedure Act: The Beginnings, 72 VA. L. REV. 219, 221 (1986).
97. See, e.g., NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) (upholding the National Labor Relations Act)
98. W. Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) (upholding minimum wage law for women and minors).
99. See COMM. ON ADMIN. PROCEDURE, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, S. DOC. NO. 77-8 (1941) [hereinafter AG'S COMMITTEE REPORT].
100. A.H. Feller, Administrative Law Investigation Comes of Age, 41 COLUM. L. REV. 589, 589-90 (1941)
101. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, The President Vetoes the Bill Regulating Administrative Agencies, Note to the House of Representatives, Dec. 18, 1940, in 9 THE PUBLIC PAPERS AND ADDRESSES OF FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT 616, 620 (1941).
102. The Federal "Administrative Procedure Act" Becomes Law, 32 A.B.A. J. 377 (1946) ("No votes were cast against it.").
103. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-706 (2012)).
104. see also Margaret H. Lemos, The Other Delegate: Judicially Administered Statutes and the Nondelegation Doctrine, 81 S. CAL. L. REV. 405, 429, 461-63 (2008).
105. See, e.g., TOM C. CLARK, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MANUAL ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 61 (1947)
106. JERRY L. MASHAW, CREATING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTITUTION: THE LOST ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF AMERICAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 310 (2012) ("Our contemporary transsubstantive administrative law is built on the foundation of administrative practices that long antedate the APA's codification.")
107. JOANNA L. GRISINGER, THE UNWIELDY AMERICAN STATE: ADMINISTRATIVE POLITICS SINCE THE NEW DEAL 79 (2012)
108. Thomas W. Merrill, Article III, Agency Adjudication, and the Origins of the Appellate Review Model of Administrative Law, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 939, 941 (2011).
109. Carl McFarland, Analysis of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, in THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: PROCEEDINGS OF AN INSTITUTE CONDUCTED BY THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ON FEBRUARY 1-8, 1947 at 17, 23 (1947) [hereinafter NYU INSTITUTE]
110. see also Marshall J. Breger, The APA: An Administrative Conference Perspective, 72 VA. L. REV. 337, 344 (1986)
111. Nathaniel L. Nathanson, Some Comments on the Administrative Procedure Act, 41 ILL. L. REV. 368, 371 (1946) (commenting that, compared to the Walter-Logan bill, the APA "is noteworthy for the breadth of its coverage").
112. see also Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 310 (1955)
113. Bernard Schwartz, Administrative Procedure and the A.P.A., 24 N.Y.U. L.Q. REV. 514, 514 (1949) (stating that the APA prescribed "[u]niform standards of fairness ⋯ for all federal administrative action").
114. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 155 (1999)
115. cf. Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1204, 1211 (2012)
116. Jeffrey S. Lubbers, APA-Adjudication: Is the Quest for Uniformity Faltering?, 10 ADMIN. L.J. AM. U. 65 (1996).
117. See William Funk, Close Enough for Government Work?-Using Informal Procedures for Imposing Administrative Penalties, 24 SETON HALL L. REV. 1, 3-4 (1993).
118. David Reich, Administrative Procedure Act: Analysis of its Requirement as to Rule-Making, 33 A.B.A. J. 315, 316 (1947) [hereinafter Reich, Analysis]
119. Ashley Sellers, Administrative Procedure Act: Extent of Agency Compliance with Section 3, 33 A.B.A. J. 7, 7 (1947).
120. Pat McCarran, Improving "Administrative Justice": Hearings and Evidence; Scope of Judicial Review, 32 A.B.A. J. 827, 830 (1946)
121. see also Joanna Grisinger, Law in Action: The Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, 20 J. POL'Y & HIST. 379, 406-07 (2008)
122. The Federal Administrative Procedure Act: Codification or Reform?, 56 YALE L.J. 670, 676, 687, 703 (1947).
123. C. Herman Pritchett, The Supreme Court and Administrative Regulation, 1941-1944, 31 IOWA L. REV. 103, 111 (1945).
124. Ashley Sellers, "Informal" Dispositions Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 32 A.B.A. J. 646, 648 (1946)
125. Nathaniel L. Nathanson, Separation of Functions Within Federal Administrative Agencies: A Comment on the Report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, 35 ILL. L. REV. 901, 907, 911-12, 915, 934 (1941).
126. Administrative Procedure Act, Pub. L. No. 79-404, § 5(c), 60 Stat. 237, 240 (1946) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 554 (2012))
127. see also Richard E. Levy & Robert L. Glicksman, Agency-Specific Precedents, 89 TEX. L. REV. 499, 505 (2011)
128. E.g., William H. Allen, The Durability of the Administrative Procedure Act, 72 VA. L. REV. 235, 237 (1986)
129. Peter L. Strauss, Changing Times: The APA at Fifty, 63 U. CHI. L. REV. 1389, 1391 (1996)
130. see also Craig N. Oren, Be Careful What You Wish For: Amending the Administrative Procedure Act, 56 ADMIN. L. REV. 1141, 1143 (2004) (arguing the APA has survived "because courts found ample flexibility in the APA's terms").
131. Freedom of Information Act, ch. 324, § 3(a), 80 Stat. 250 (1966) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. §552 (2012))
132. Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. No. 94-409, § 3(a), 90 Stat. 1241 (1976) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (2012)).
133. Government in Sunshine Act § 4 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 557(d) (2012)).
134. Ronald M. Levin, Statutory Reform of the Administrative Process: The American Experience and the Role of the Bar, 83 WASH. U. L.Q. 1875, 1880 (2005)
135. see also Ronald M. Levin, Comment, Review of "Jurisdictional" Issues Under the Bumpers Amendment [hereinafter Levin, Review], 1983 DUKE L.J. 355
136. James T. O'Reilly, Deference Makes a Difference: A Study of Impacts of the Bumpers Judicial Review Amendment, 49 U. CIN. L. REV. 739 (1980).
137. See Regulatory Accountability Act of 2013, H.R. 2122, 113th Cong. (2013)
138. Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, H.R. 367, 113th Cong. (2013).
139. E.g., Regulatory Reform Act-S. 1080: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong. (1981)
140. see generally MICHAEL ASIMOW & RONALD M. LEVIN, STATE AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (3d ed. 2009)
141. Arthur Earl Bonfield, The Federal APA and State Administrative Law, 72 VA. L. REV. 297 (1986).
142. see also Edward L. Rubin, How Statutes Interpret the Constitution, 120 YALE L.J. ONLINE 297 (2011), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/how-statutes-interpret-the-constitution (arguing that superstatutes are interpretations of the Constitution itself).
143. see also Reuel E. Schiller, Enlarging the Administrative Polity: Administrative Law and the Changing Definition of Pluralism, 1945-1970, 53 VAND. L. REV. 1389, 1429 (2000) ("The demise of the rights/privileges distinction resulted from the rise of the participatory ideal of policy making.").
144. Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 (1961).
145. see also Stephen M. Griffin, The National Security Constitution and the Bush Administration, 120 YALE L.J. ONLINE 367 (2011), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-national-security-constitution-and-the-bush-administration
146. Lisa Schultz Bressman, Beyond Accountability: Arbitrariness and Legitimacy in the Administrative State, 78 N.Y.U. L. REV. 461, 494 (2003) (emphasis in original).
147. Mark Seidenfeld, The Role of Politics in a Deliberative Model of the Administrative State, 81 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1397, 1426-35, 1444 (2013) [hereinafter Seidenfeld, The Role of Politics]
148. Jonathan Weinberg, The Right To Be Taken Seriously, 67 U. MIAMI L. REV. 149, 178-90 (2012).
149. But see Mark Seidenfeld, A Civic Republican Justification for the Bureaucratic State, 105 HARV. L. REV. 1511 (1992)
150. see also Mathew D. McCubbins & Daniel B. Rodriguez, When Does Deliberating Improve Decisionmaking?, 15 J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 9 (2006).
151. see also William N. Eskridge, Jr., Vetogates, Chevron, Preemption, 83 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1441, 1457 (2008) [hereinafter Eskridge, Vetogates].
152. Jean Galbraith & David Zaring, Soft Law as Foreign Relations Law, 99 CORNELL L. REV. 735, 758 (2014)
153. See John G. Roberts, Jr., What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different? A Historical View, 92 VA. L. REV. 375, 389 (2006).
154. AMY GUTMANN & DENNIS THOMPSON, DEMOCRACY AND DISAGREEMENT 12 (1996).
155. See JEREMY WALDRON, LAW AND DISAGREEMENT 213, 253 (1999).
156. see also JEREMY WALDRON, THE DIGNITY OF LEGISLATION 126-29 (1999).
157. see also William N. Eskridge, Jr., Expanding Chevron's Domain: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of the Relative Competence of Courts and Agencies To Interpret Statutes, 2013 WISC. L. REV. 411 (2013)
158. See Linda D. Jellum, The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: Has It Mastered Chevron's Step Zero?, 3 VETERANS L. REV. 67 (2011).
159. see also Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 355 (1989).
160. But see Richard Lazarus, The National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Reappraisal and a Peek Behind the Curtains, 100 Geo. L.J. 1507, 1563 (2012)
161. Air N. Am. v. Dep't of Transp., 937 F.2d 1427, 1436-37 (9th Cir. 1991)
162. Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 VA. L. REV. 187, 209 (2006)
163. see also Bowen v. Am. Hosp. Ass'n, 476 U.S. 610, 642 n.30 (1986)
164. Collins v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 351 F.3d 1246, 1252-53 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
165. Rapaport v. Dep't of Treasury, 59 F.3d 212, 216-17 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
166. Tom Goldstein, Practice Before the Office of the Solicitor General: Few Secret Meetings, SCOTUSBLOG.COM (Jan. 17, 2010, 9:08 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/practice-before-the-office-of-the-solicitor-general-few-secret-meetings-2/
167. see also Patricia A. Millett, "We're Your Government and We're Here To Help": Obtaining Amicus Support From the Federal Government in Supreme Court Cases, 10 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 209, 215-22 (2009).
168. Cass R. Sunstein, Commentary, The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and Realities, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1838 (2013).
169. Lisa Heinzerling, Inside EPA: A Former Insider's Reflections on the Relationship Between the Obama EPA and the Obama White House, 31 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 325, 327-41 (2014).
170. Kathryn A. Watts, Proposing a Place for Politics in Arbitrary and Capricious Review, 119 YALE L.J. 2, 62 (2009)
171. Dan Farber, Confessions of a Regulatory Czar, LEGAL PLANET (Feb. 20, 2013), http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/19886/
172. see also David M. Driesen, Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Neutral?, 77 U. COLO. L. REV. 335, 378-80 (2006) (stating that OIRA acts as an antiregulatory "one-way ratchet")
173. Editorial, Stuck in Purgatory, N.Y. TIMES, July 1, 2013, at A22 (calling OIRA "one of the most formidable obstacles to reform").
174. Sally Katzen, OIRA at Thirty: Reflections and Recommendations, 63 ADMIN. L. REV. 103, 105 (2011).
175. Jeffrey S. Lubbers, Achieving Policymaking Consensus: The (Unfortunate) Waning of Negotiated Rulemaking, 49 S. TEX. L. REV. 987, 997 (2008)
176. See Richard H. Seamon, Separation of Powers and the Separate Treatment of Contract Claims Against the Federal Government for Specific Performance, 43 VILL. L. REV. 155, 183-85 (1998)
177. see also Paul R. Verkuil, What the Return of the Administrative Conference of the United States Means for Administrative Law, 1 MICH. J. ENVTL. & ADMIN. L. 17, 21-25, 30-31 (2012) (describing how ACUS works and listing ACUS studies related to environmental law).
178. See ADMIN. CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, PUBLIC MEETING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (2013), available at http://acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Public %20Meeting%20Policies%20and%20Procedures%20FINAL.pdf
179. ADMIN. CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, PUBLIC COMMENT POLICY, available at http://acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Public%20Comment%20Policy.pdf.
180. see Jeffrey S. Lubbers, ACUS 2.0 and its Historical Antecedents, 36 ADMIN. & REG. L. NEWS 9 (2011).
181. cf. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 230 (2001)
182. John F. Manning, Second-Generation Textualism, 98 CALIF. L. REV. 1287, 1290 (2010).
183. William N. Eskridge, Jr., No Frills Textualism, 119 HARV. L. REV. 2041, 2053 (2006) (reviewing ADRIAN VERMEULE, JUDGING UNDER UNCERTAINTY (2006))
184. see also William N. Eskridge, Jr., The New Textualism, 37 UCLA L. Rev. 621, 633-34 & n.48 (1990).
185. Victoria F. Nourse, A Decision Theory of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History by the Rules, 122 YALE L.J. 70, 119 (2012) (arguing that one cannot identify compromises in legislation "without looking at the legislative history and the rules governing it")
186. Amy Coney Barrett, Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 317 (2005)
187. William N. Eskridge, Jr., Overruling Statutory Precedents, 76 GEO. L.J. 1361 (1988)
188. But see Matthew R. Christiansen & William N. Eskridge, Jr., Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 1967-2011, 92 TEX. L. REV. 1317, 1461 (2014)
189. William R. Andersen, Against Chevron-A Modest Proposal, 56 ADMIN. L. REV. 957, 974 (2004).
190. see also Lawrence Solum, Legal Theory Lexicon: Second Best & Nonideal Theory, LEGAL THEORY BLOG (Sept. 14, 2014), http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2014/09/legal-theory-lexicon-second-best-nonideal-theory.html
191. Cf. Einer Elhauge, Preference-Eliciting Statutory Default Rules, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 2162, 2165, 2967 (2002)
192. Cass R. Sunstein, Nondelegation Canons, 67 U. CHI. L. REV. 315, 317, 335 (2000)
193. DC Comics v. Kryptonite Corp., 336 F. Supp. 2d 324, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
194. cf. Sam Deloria, Commentary on Nation-Building: The Future of Indian Nations, 34 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 55, 55 (2002)
195. Christopher J. Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule and the Judicial Toolbox for Agency Dialogue, 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2014) (manuscript at 7), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2242869 (arguing that administrative common law can enable the courts to "strike the right balance of powers between courts and agencies").
196. See Jide O. Nzelibe & Matthew C. Stephenson, Complementary Constraints: Separation of Powers, Rational Voting, and Constitutional Design, 123 HARV. L. REV. 617, 624-27 (2010).
197. Emily Hammond & David L. Markell, Administrative Proxies for Judicial Review: Building Legitimacy from the Inside-Out, 37 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 313, 316-17, 323, 325 (2013)
198. Kristin E. Hickman, Unpacking the Force of Law, 66 VAND. L. REV. 465, 520 (2013).
199. See Mark Seidenfeld, Demystifying Deossification: Rethinking Recent Proposals To Modify Judicial Review of Notice and Comment Rulemaking, 75 TEX. L. REV. 483, 483-84 (1997)
200. Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
201. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33 (1950).
202. See Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 306 (1955).
203. See, e.g., Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, S. 15, 113th Cong. (2013).
204. See Josh Chafetz, The Phenomenology of Gridlock, 88 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 2065, 2078, 2085 (2013)
205. David A. Fahrenthold, Philip Rucker & Felicia Sonmez, Stormy 111th Congress Was Still the Most Productive in Decades, WASH. POST (Dec. 23, 2010), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205620.html.
206. Jody Freeman & David B. Spence, Old Statutes, New Problems, 163 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 75 (2014).
207. See Mortgage Bankers Assoc. v. Harris, 720 F.3d 966 (D.C. Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S. Ct. 2820 (2014)
208. Am. Radio Relay League v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 246 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (discussing Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1973)).