What 30 years of Chevron teach us about the rest of statutory interpretation

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 607-632

  Gluck, Abbe R ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938540028     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
2. Karl N. Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed, 3 VAND. L. REV. 395, 401-06 (1950) .
3. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 864-65.
4. 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
5. Hans A. Linde, Due Process of Lawmaking, 55 NEB. L. REV. 197, 199 (1976)
6. SUSAN ROSE-ACKERMAN ET AL., "DUE PROCESS OF LAWMAKING": UNITED STATES, SOUTHERN AFRICA, GERMANY, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION, (forthcoming 2014).
7. 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
8. William N. Eskridge, Jr., Overruling Statutory Precedents, 76 GEO. L.J. 1361, 1362 (1988)
9. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 139 (2008).
10. Abbe R. Gluck, The Federal Common Law of Statutory Interpretation: Erie for the Age of Statutes, 54 WM. & MARY L. REV. 753 (2013).
11. Abbe R. Gluck, Intrastatutory Federalism and Statutory Interpretation: State Implementation of Federal Law in Health Reform and Beyond, 121 YALE L.J. 534 (2011).
12. Abbe R. Gluck, Anne Joseph O'Connell & Rosa Po, Unorthodox Lawmaking, Unorthodox Rulemaking, U. PENN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2015).
13. 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, 767-69 (2014).
14. Abbe R. Gluck, The States As Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation: Methodological Consensus and the New Modified Textualism, 119 YALE L.J. 1750 (2010)
15. 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 (2013)
16. Abbe R. Gluck, Our [National] Federalism, 123 YALE L.J. 1996 (2014)
17. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).
18. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 697-703 (1995).
19. PETER L. STRAUSS ET AL., GELLHORN AND BYSE'S ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: CASES AND COMMENTS 1021 (11th ed. 2011).
20. Connor N. Raso & William N. Eskridge, Jr., Chevron As a Canon, Not a Precedent: An Empirical Study of What Motivates Justices in Agency Deference Cases, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 1727 (2010).
21. Jack M. Beermann, End the Failed Chevron Experiment Now: How Chevron Has Failed and Why It Can and Should Be Overruled, 42 CONN. L. REV. 779, 782 & n.6 (2010)
22. Peter M. Shane & Christopher J. Walker, Foreword: Chevron at 30: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 475, 475 & n.2 (2014).
23. Jerry L. Mashaw, Norms, Practices, and the Paradox of Deference: A Preliminary Inquiry into Agency Statutory Interpretation, 57 ADMIN. L. REV. 501, 524-26 (2005).
24. WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., PHILIP P. FRICKEY & ELIZABETH GARRETT, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LEGISLATION, STATUTES AND THE CREATION OF PUBLIC POLICY app. B (4th ed. 2007).
25. Abbe R. Gluck, Intersystemic Statutory Interpretation: Methodology As "Law" and the Erie Doctrine, 120 YALE L.J. 1898, 1910 (2011).
26. Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992)
27. William N. Eskridge, Jr., Gadamer/Statutory Interpretation, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 609, 662 (1990)
28. Philip P. Frickey, Revisiting the Revival of Theory in Statutory Interpretation: A Lecture in Honor of Irving Younger, 84 MINN. L. REV. 199, 206 (1999).
29. ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS (2012).
30. Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 255 (2010).
31. United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 429 (2009).
32. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 697 (2001).
33. 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014).
34. 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014).
35. Hayes, 555 U.S. at 429, 436-37.
36. Jerome Frank, Words and Music: Some Remarks on Statutory Interpretation, 47 COLUM. L. REV. 1259, 1269 (1947)
37. Felix Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 COLUM. L. REV. 527, 528 (1947)
38. Todd D. Rakoff, Statutory Interpretation As a Multifarious Enterprise, 104 NW. U. L. REV. 1559, 1578 (2010)
39. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
40. At least in terms of justification; the canons' actual effect on judicial decision making is difficult to determine and contested.
41. Jack M. Beermann, Common Law and Statute Law in Administrative Law, 63 ADMIN. L. REV. 1, 2-3 (2011)
42. Gillian E. Metzger, Embracing Administrative Common Law, 80 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1293, 1295 (2012).
43. ANTONIN SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION 29 (1997).
44. 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).
45. 501 U.S. 452, 461 (1991).
46. United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229 (1992)
47. United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351, 357 (1988).
48. Henry P. Monaghan, The Supreme Court, 1974 Term - Foreword: Constitutional Common Law, 89 HARV. L. REV 1, 2-3 (1975).
49. Elizabeth Garrett, Legislating Chevron, 101 MICH. L. REV. 2637 (2003)
50. Kent Barnett, Improving Agencies' Preemption Expertise with Chevmore Codification, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 587 (2014)
51. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(5)(A) (2012).
52. Cass R. Sunstein, Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is, 115 YALE L.J. 2580, 2610 (2006).
53. John F. Manning, Clear Statement Rules and the Constitution, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 399, 406 n.26 (2010)
54. Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 112 (1979).
55. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).
56. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936).
57. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
58. Kenneth A. Bamberger, Normative Canons in the Review of Administrative Policymaking, 118 YALE L.J. 64 (2008).
59. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 865-66 (1984).
60. Lisa Schultz Bressman, Reclaiming the Legal Fiction of Congressional Delegation, 97 VA. L. REV. 2009 (2011).
61. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001).
62. David J. Barron & Elena Kagan, Chevron's Nondelegation Doctrine, 2001 SUP. CT. REV. 201, 212.
63. Mead, 533 U.S. at 236.
64. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 231 (1994).
65. Christopher J. Walker, Chevron Inside the Regulatory State: An Empirical Assessment, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 703, 715-21 (2014).
66. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 133 S. Ct. 735, 744 (2013)
67. Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1989)
68. Elizabeth Garrett, Attention to Context in Statutory Interpretation: Applying the Lessons of Dynamic Statutory Interpretation to Omnibus Legislation, ISSUES LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP, art. 1, 2002, at 7, available at http://www.bepress.com/ils/iss3/art1.
69. William W. Buzbee, The One-Congress Fiction in Statutory Interpretation, 149 U. PA. L. REV. 171 (2000).
70. BARBARA SINCLAIR, UNORTHODOX LAWMAKING: NEW LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES IN THE U.S. CONGRESS (4th ed. 2012)
71. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001)
72. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (2012).
73. Mead, 533 U.S. at 246.
74. 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
75. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985).
76. William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, Quasi-Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules As Constitutional Lawmaking, 45 VAND. L. REV. 593, 598 (1992).
77. 501 U.S. 452, 459-60 (1991).
78. Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 555-56 (1985).
79. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 982 (2005).
80. 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
81. Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 VA. L. REV. 187, 206 (2006)
82. S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917).
83. Kenneth A. Bamberger, Provisional Precedent: Protecting Flexibility in Administrative Policymaking, 77 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1272, 1310-11 (2002)
84. Peter L. Strauss, "Deference" Is Too Confusing - Let's Call Them "Chevron Space" and "Skidmore Weight," 112 COLUM. L. REV. 1143, 1169 (2012).
85. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 139 (2008)
86. Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172-73 (1989)
87. Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 280-82 (1972)
88. Amy Coney Barrett, Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 317, 327 (2005).
89. Sand & Gravel Co., 552 U.S. at 139.
90. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 1003 (2005).
91. 132 S. Ct. 1836 (2012).
92. Deborah A. Widiss, Shadow Precedents and the Separation of Powers: Statutory Interpretation of Congressional Overrides, 84 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 511, 518-28 (2009).
93. Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir. 2012)
94. 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013).
95. City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1879 (2013)
96. The FEDERALIST NO. 47, at 324 (James Madison) (J. Cooke ed., 1961).
97. Daniel A. Farber & Anne Joseph O'Connell, The Lost World of Administrative Law, 92 TEX. L. REV. 1137 (2014)
98. ROBERT KAISER, ACT OF CONGRESS: HOW AMERICA'S ESSENTIAL INSTITUTION WORKS, AND HOW IT DOESN'T (2013)
99. Jody Freeman & Jim Rossi, Agency Coordination in Shared Regulatory Space, 125 HARV. L. REV. 1131 (2012).
100. Jacob E. Gersen, Overlapping and Underlapping Jurisdiction in Administrative Law, 2006 SUP. CT. REV. 201, 207.
101. Kevin M. Stack, Interpreting Regulations, 111 MICH. L. REV. 355, 382-83 (2012)
102. Peter L. Strauss, When the Judge Is Not the Primary Official with Responsibility to Read: Agency Interpretation and the Problem of Legislative History, 66 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 321, 322-29 (1990).