Improving agencies' preemption expertise with Chevmore codification

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 587-606

  Barnett, Kent ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925448417     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (130)

1. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
2. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
3. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844.
4. Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140.
5. Pub. L. No. 11-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)
6. 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(5)(B) (2012).
7. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2012).
8. Codifying Chevmore, 89 N.Y.U. L. REV. (forthcoming 2015).
9. Peter M. Shane & Christopher J. Walker, Foreword: Chevron at 30: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 475 (2014).
10. Stephen Breyer, Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy, 38 ADMIN. L. REV. 363, 368 (1986);
11. Evan J. Criddle, Chevron's Consensus, 88 B.U. L. REV. 1271, 1310-11 (2008);
12. Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., Why Deference?: Implied Delegations, Agency Expertise, and the Misplaced Legacy of Skidmore, 54 ADMIN. L. REV. 735, 737 (2002).
13. Nina A. Mendelson, Chevron and Preemption, 102 MICH. L. REV. 737 (2004).
14. 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2012).
15. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 135-36 (1944).
16. 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
17. A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. Holland, 472 F.3d 148, 169 (4th Cir. 2006)
18. Kristin E. Hickman & Matthew D. Krueger, In Search of the Modern Skidmore Standard, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1235, 1293 (2007)
19. Thomas W. Merrill & Kristin E. Hickman, Chevron's Domain, 89 GEO. L.J. 833, 855 (2001)
20. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-45 (1984);
21. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671 (2012).
22. Elizabeth Garrett, Legislating Chevron, 101 MICH. L. REV. 2637, 2646 (2003).
23. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 865.
24. John F. Duffy, Administrative Common Law in Judicial Review, 77 TEX. L. REV. 113, 191 (1998)
25. United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
26. Mead, 533 U.S. at 230-31.
27. Einer Elhauge, Preference-Estimating Statutory Default Rules, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 2027, 2137 (2002)
28. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 266-67 (2006).
29. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997).
30. Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 256-57.
31. Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326, 1339 (2013)
32. 551 U.S. 158, 165, 167-68 (2007).
33. Lisa Schultz Bressman, Reclaiming the Legal Fiction of Congressional Delegation, 97 VA. L. REV. 2009, 2015-18 (2011)
34. Martin v. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991).
35. William N. Eskridge & Lauren E. Baer, The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations from Chevron to Hamdan, 96 GEO. L.J. 1083, 1180 (2008);
36. Ronald M. Levin, Scope-of-Review Doctrine Restated: An Administrative Law Section Report, 38 ADMIN. L. REV. 239, 270 (1986)
37. John F. Manning, Constitutional Structure and Judicial Deference to Agency Interpretations of Agency Rules, 96 COLUM. L. REV. 612, 681 (1996)
38. Jonathan R. Siegel, The REINS Act and the Struggle to Control Agency Rulemaking, 16 N.Y.U. J. LEGIS. & PUB. POL'Y 131, 174 (2013)
39. Emily Hammond Meazell, Super Deference, the Science Obsession, and Judicial Review As Transaction of Agency Science, 109 MICH. L. REV. 733, 756 (2011);
40. Edward L. Rubin, Uniformity, Regulation, and the Federalization of State Law: Some Lessons from the Payment System, 49 OHIO ST. L.J. 1251, 1267 (1989)
41. Howe v. Smith, 452 U.S. 473, 485 (1981)
42. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2012).
43. Cynthia R. Farina, Statutory Interpretation and the Balance of Power in the Administrative State, 89 COLUM. L. REV. 452, 524 (1989)
44. Emily Hammond Meazell, Presidential Control, Expertise, and the Deference Dilemma, 61 DUKE L.J. 1763, 1809 (2012)
45. Kathryn A. Watts, Proposing a Place for Politics in Arbitrary and Capricious Review, 119 YALE L.J. 2, 18-19 (2009)
46. Kent Barnett, Resolving the ALJ Quandary, 66 VAND. L. REV. 797, 816-27 (2013)
47. Joshua D. Wright & Angela M. Diveley, Do Expert Agencies Outperform Generalist Judges? Some Preliminary Evidence from the Federal Trade Commission, 1 J. ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT 82 (2013).
48. Greater Bos. Tel. Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 850 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
49. Sanford N. Caust-Ellenbogen, Blank Checks: Restoring the Balance of Powers in the Post-Chevron Era, 32 B.C. L. REV. 757, 774-75 (1991)
50. Sidney Shapiro et al., The Enlightenment of Administrative Law: Looking Inside the Agency for Legitimacy, 47 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 463, 470 (2012)
51. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 865 (1984);
52. Lisa Schultz Bressman, Procedures As Politics in Administrative Law, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1749, 1765 (2007)
53. Thomas O. McGarity, Some Thoughts on "Deossifying" the Rulemaking Process, 41 DUKE L.J. 1385, 1444 (1992)
54. Jody Freeman & Jim Rossi, Agency Coordination in Shared Regulatory Space, 125 HARV. L. REV. 1131, 1187 (2012)
55. Peter L. Strauss, One Hundred Fifty Cases per Year: Some Implications of the Supreme Court's Limited Resources for Judicial Review of Agency Action, 87 COLUM. L. REV. 1093, 1112 (1987)
56. Wachovia Bank v. Watters, 431 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2005)
57. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Boutris, 419 F.3d 949, 958 (9th Cir. 2005)
58. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Burke, 414 F.3d 305, 315 (2d Cir. 2005)
59. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 576-77 (2009)
60. Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C., 557 U.S. 519, 525 (2009)
61. Nina A. Mendelson, A Presumption Against Agency Preemption, 102 NW. U. L. REV. 695 (2008);
62. Exec. Order No. 13,132, 3 C.F.R. 206 (1999).
63. Catherine M. Sharkey, Federalism Accountability: "Agency-Forcing"Measures, 58 DUKE L.J. 2125, 2153 (2009).
64. Catherine M. Sharkey, Inside Agency Preemption, 110 MICH. L. REV. 521 (2012).
65. Miriam Seifter, Federalism at Step Zero, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 633, 636-37 (2014).
66. David J. Barron & Elena Kagan, Chevron's Nondelegation Doctrine, 2001 SUP. CT. REV. 201, 223 (2001)
67. Abbe R. Gluck & Lisa Schultz Bressman, Statutory Interpretation from the Inside - An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons: Part I, 65 STAN. L. REV. 901, 1004 (2013)
68. Christopher J. Walker, Chevron Inside the Regulatory State: An Empirical Assessment, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 703, 721 (2014)
69. 12 U.S.C. § 1 (2012); 44 U.S.C. § 3502(5) (2012)
70. Kirti Datla & Richard L. Revesz, Deconstructing Independent Agencies (and Executive Agencies), 98 CORNELL L. REV. 769, 772 (2013),
71. 12 U.S.C. § 2.
72. 12 U.S.C. § 38.
73. 12 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2011).
74. 517 U.S. 25 (1996).
75. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941).
76. Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 550 U.S. 1, 13 (2007).
77. Aguayo v. U.S. Bank, 653 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir. 2011).
78. Raymond Natter & Katie Wechsler, Dodd-Frank Act and National Bank Preemption: Much Ado About Nothing, 7 VA. L. & BUS. REV. 301, 318-20 (2012)
79. GA. CODE ANN. § 7-6A-1 (2012).
80. Christopher L. Peterson, Preemption, Agency Cost Theory, and Predatory Lending by Banking Agents: Are Federal Regulators Biting Off More Than They Can Chew?, 56 AM. U. L. REV. 515, 526-27 (2007).
81. Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 127 S. Ct. 1559 (No. 05-1342), 2006 WL 2570989, at ∗11;
82. Amanda Quester & Kathleen Keest, Looking Ahead After Watters v. Wachovia Bank: Challenges for Lower Courts, Congress, and the Comptroller of the Currency, 27 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 187, 195 (2007);
83. Nicholas Bagley, Note, The Unwarranted Regulatory Preemption of Predatory Lending Laws, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 2274, 2304 (2004).
84. Mark E. Budnitz, The Federalization and Privatization of Public Consumer Protection Law in the United States: Their Effect on Litigation and Enforcement, 24 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 663, 673 n.50 (2008).
85. Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., Cuomo v. Clearing House: The Supreme Court Responds to the Subprime Financial Crisis and Delivers a Major Victory for the Dual Banking System and Consumer Protection, in THE PANIC OF 2008: CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR REFORM 305 (Lawrence E. Mitchell & Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr. eds., 2010)).
86. Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., The Dodd-Frank Act's Expansion of State Authority to Protect Consumers of Financial Services, 36 J. CORP. L. 893, 936 (2011).
87. Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, LLC, 557 U.S. 519, 535-36 (2009).
88. S. REP. NO. 111-176, at 16 (2010);
89. Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., The OCC's Preemption Rules Exceed the Agency's Authority and Present a Serious Threat to the Dual Banking System and Consumer Protection, 23 ANN. REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 225, 232 (2004);
90. Chris Serres, Bill Has Banks Fearing Power of the States, STAR TRIBUNE (Mar. 16, 2010, 11:35 PM), http://www.startribune.com/business/87956447.html.
91. Gillian E. Metzger, Federalism and Federal Agency Reform, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 27 (2011)
92. Cuomo, 557 U.S. 519.
93. Rachel E. Barkow, Insulating Agencies: Avoiding Capture Through Institutional Design, 89 TEX. L. REV. 15, 21-22 (2010).
94. Jamelle C. Sharpe, Legislating Preemption, 53 WM. & MARY L. REV. 163, 227-28 (2011).
95. OCC, Preemption Determination & Order, 68 Fed. Reg. 46,264, 46,271-72 (Aug. 5, 2003).
96. OCC, Preemption Determination & Order, 68 Fed. Reg. 46,264 (Aug. 5, 2003).
97. James A. Huizinga et al., OCC Moves to Implement Dodd-Frank Act Preemption Provisions, 128 BANKING L.J. 755, 758 (2011)
98. U.S. DEP'T OF THE TREASURY, FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM: A NEW FOUNDATION 61 (2009)
99. H.R. 3126, 111th Cong. § 143 (2009).
100. 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b) (2012).
101. Section 25b(b)(6) provides that "[a]ny regulation, order, or determination made by the Comptroller . . . under paragraph (1)(B) shall be made by the Comptroller, and shall not be delegable . . . ."
102. H.R. 4173, 111th Cong. § 5136C(b)(4)
103. H. Comm. on Financial Services, 1st Sess., 2009), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4173ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr4173ih.pdf.
104. H.R. 4173, 111th Cong. § 5136C(b)(5)(A)
105. House, 1st Sess., 2009), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4173ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr4173ih.pdf.
106. 155 CONG. REC. E3029 (daily ed. Dec. 16, 2009)
107. Amend. No. 141 to H.R. 4173 (Dec. 9, 2009)
108. Abbott Labs., Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 143 (1967);
109. Stephanie R. Hoffer &Christopher J. Walker, The Death of Tax Court Exceptionalism, 99 MINN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2014)
110. Am. Paper Inst. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402, 412 n.7 (1983)), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN-ID2458248-code649541.pdf?abstractid=2393412&mirid=1
111. 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 554, 556, 557 (2012);
112. Sections 553 and 554 of the APA require formal proceedings when Congress calls for agency action "on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing." The directive in Dodd-Frank calls for findings "on the record of the proceeding." Because the Court has strictly interpreted the APA triggering language, it is not certain that Congress has required the OCC to proceed through formal proceedings. But if so, it is likely one of the first instances in which Congress has required formal rulemaking in decades.
113. 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(3)(B) (2012).
114. § 25b(d)(1)-(2).
115. These review-and-report provisions also increase the burden of agency preemption, incentivizing the OCC to limit preemption rulings.
116. The Comptroller's inability to delegate ensures that he or she retains full political accountability for preemption decisions.
117. Jared Elosta, Dynamic Federalism and Consumer Financial Protection: How the Dodd-Frank Act Changes the Preemption Debate, 89 N.C. L. REV. 1273, 1299 (2011)
118. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
119. OCC, http://www.occ.gov/about/what-we-do/mission/index-about.html (last visited on Oct. 19, 2014)
120. Heidi Mandanis Schooner, Recent Challenges to the Persistent Dual Banking System, 41 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 263, 273 (1996);
121. Christine E. Blair & Rose M. Kushmeider, Challenges to the Dual Banking System: The Funding of Bank Supervision, FDIC BANKING REV., Mar. 2006, at 6
122. Arthur Wilmarth, OCC Gets It Wrong on Preemption, Again, AM. BANKER (Jul. 28, 2011, 4:34 PM), http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/OCC-preemption-Dodd-Frank-1040692-1.html.
123. Office of Thrift Supervision Integration; Dodd-Frank Act Implementation, 76 Fed. Reg. 43,549, 43,557 (July 21, 2011).
124. Sacco v. Bank of Am., No. 5:12-cv-00006-RLV-DCK, 2012 WL 6566681, at ∗8 n.7 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 17, 2012).
125. 44 U.S.C. § 3502(5) (2012)
126. 12 U.S.C. § 2 (2012).
127. Exec. Order No. 13,132, § 9, 3 C.F.R. 206 (1999);
128. Exec. Order No. 13,132, § 2(a)-(i), 3 C.F.R. 206 (1999).
129. Gillian E. Metzger, Administrative Law As the New Federalism, 57 DUKE L.J. 2023, 2080-82 (2008)
130. 49 U.S.C. § 5125(b)(2) (2012)