Chevron at 30: Looking back and looking forward foreword

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 475-495

  Shane, Peter M ^a   Walker, Christopher J ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938864979     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (73)

1. 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
2. JERRY L. MASHAW, RICHARD A. MERRILL, PETER M. SHANE, M. ELIZABETH MAGILL, MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR, NICHOLAS R. PARRILLO, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: THE AMERICAN PUBLIC LAW SYSTEM (7th ed. 2014).
3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
4. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
5. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
6. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
7. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
8. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
9. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 1019 (2005).
10. Law Review's website at http://fordhamlawreview.org.
11. 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013).
12. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43.
13. John F. Manning, Chevron and Legislative History, 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2014).
14. Compare Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)
15. Cass R. Sunstein, Nondelegation Canons, 67 U. CHI. L. REV. 315, 330 (2000)
16. ADRIAN VERMEULE, JUDGING UNDER UNCERTAINTY: AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION 211 (2006)
17. Thomas W. Merrill & Kristin E. Hickman, Chevron's Domain, 89 GEO. L.J. 833, 915 (2001)
18. Christopher J. Walker, Avoiding Normative Canons in the Review of Administrative Interpretations of Law: A Brand X Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance, 64 ADMIN. L. REV. 139, 143-44 (2012)
19. Hernandez-Carrera v. Carlson, 547 F.3d 1237, 1242 (10th Cir. 2008)
20. Kenneth A. Bamberger, Normative Canons in the Review of Administrative Policymaking, 118 YALE L.J. 64, 93-94 (2008).
21. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 982-83 (2005).
22. Abbe R. Gluck, What 30 Years of Chevron Teach Us About the Rest of Statutory Interpretation, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 607, 625 (2014).
23. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2012).
24. Jack M. Beermann, Chevron at the Roberts Court: Still Failing After All These Years, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 731, 732 (2014)
25. 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, 807-08 (2010).
26. United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 1836, 1846 n.1 (2012) .
27. Kenneth A. Bamberger & Peter L. Strauss, Chevron's Two Steps, 95 VA. L. REV. 611 (2009)
28. Richard M. Re, Should Chevron Have Two Steps?, 89 IND. L.J. 605 (2014)
29. Matthew C. Stephenson & Adrian Vermeule, Chevron Has Only One Step, 95 VA. L. REV. 597 (2009).
30. Cass Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 VA. L. REV. 187, 207-11 (2006).
31. 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
32. Christensen v. Harris County, and Barnhart v. Walton
33. Kristin E. Hickman, The Three Phases of Mead, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 527, 531 (2014).
34. Mead, 533 U.S. at 226-27.
35. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
36. Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140.
37. Peter L. Strauss, "Deference" Is Too Confusing-Let's Call Them "Chevron Space" and "Skidmore Weight," 112 COLUM. L. REV. 1143, 1144-45 (2012).
38. Mead, 533 U.S. at 229.
39. In City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2013).
40. Mead, 533 U.S. at 239-40, 258-59 & n.6.
41. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 1003-06 (2005).
42. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n.9 (1984).
43. Peter L. Strauss, In Search of Skidmore, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 789 (2014).
44. 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1872-73 (2013).
45. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
46. Thomas W. Merrill, Step Zero After City of Arlington, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 753 (2014).
47. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1868.
48. Peter M. Shane, Chevron Deference, the Rule of Law, and Presidential Influence in the Administrative State, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 679, 685-86 (2014).
49. James J. Brudney, Chevron and Skidmore in the Workplace: Unhappy Together, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 497 (2014).
50. 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)
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 (2014).
52. Kent Barnett, Codifying Chevmore, 89 N.Y.U. L. REV. (forthcoming 2015), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2405016
53. Kent Barnett, Improving Agencies' Preemption Expertise with Chevmore Codification, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 587 (2014).
54. 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(5)(A) (2012)).
55. Abbe R. Gluck, Intersystemic Statutory Interpretation: Methodology As "Law" and the Erie Doctrine, 120 YALE L.J. 1898, 1910 (2011)
56. Abbe R. Gluck, Intrastatutory Federalism and Statutory Interpretation: State Implementation of Federal Law in Health Reform and Beyond, 121 YALE L.J. 534 (2011)
57. Abbe R. Gluck, The Federal Common Law of Statutory Interpretation: Erie for the Age of Statutes, 54 WM. & MARY L. REV. 753 (2013)
58. Abbe R. Gluck, The States As Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation: Methodological Consensus and the New Modified Textualism, 119 YALE L.J. 1750 (2010).
59. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 982-83 (2005).
60. Aaron Saiger, Chevron and Deference in the State Administrative Law, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 555, 564 (2014).
61. Christopher J. Walker, Chevron Inside the Regulatory State: An Empirical Assessment, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 703 (2014)
62. Christopher J. Walker, Inside Agency Interpretation, 67 STAN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2015), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2501716.
63. Emily Hammond, Chevron's Generality Principles, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 655, 656 (2014).
64. Emily Hammond & David L. Markell, Administrative Proxies for Judicial Review: Building Legitimacy from the Inside-Out, 37 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 313 (2013).
65. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
66. PETER M. SHANE, MADISON'S NIGHTMARE: HOW EXECUTIVE POWER THREATENS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 32-42 (2009).
67. STEVEN G. CALABRESI &CHRISTOPHER S. YOO, THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE: PRESIDENTIAL POWER FROM WASHINGTON TO BUSH (2008).
68. Miriam Seifter, Federalism at Step Zero, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 633 (2014).
69. Miriam Seifter, States, Agencies, and Legitimacy, 67 VAND. L. REV. 443 (2014)
70. Miriam Seifter, States As Interest Groups in the Administrative Process, 100 VA. L. REV. 953 (2014).
71. 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(5)(B) (2012).
72. Nina A. Mendelson, Chevron and Preemption, 102 MICH. L. REV. 737, 797 (2008)).
73. Peter M. Shane, Ambiguity and Policy Making: A Cognitive Approach to Reconciling Chevron and Mead, 16 VILL. ENVTL. L.J. 19 (2005).