Step zero after City of Arlington

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 753-788

  Merrill, Thomas W ^a  

^a The Earth Institute at Columbia University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938868622     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (143)

1. 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
2. Peter M. Shane & Christopher J. Walker, Foreword: Chevron at 30: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 475 (2014).
3. Thomas W. Merrill, The Disposing Power of the Legislature, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 452, 474-75 (2010).
4. Richard H. Pildes, Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law, 2013 SUP. CT. REV. 1.
5. NEIL K. KOMESAR, IMPERFECT ALTERNATIVES: CHOOSING INSTITUTIONS IN LAW, ECONOMICS, AND PUBLIC POLICY 124-28 (1994).
6. ADRIAN VERMEULE, JUDGING UNDER UNCERTAINTY: AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION 123-32 (2006).
7. THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, at 402 (Alexander Hamilton) (Gideon ed., 2001).
8. WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE JR. & JOHN FEREJOHN, A REPUBLIC OF STATUTES: THE NEW AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (2010).
9. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).
10. Thomas W. Merrill & Kristin E. Hickman, Chevron's Domain, 89 GEO. L.J. 833, 853 (2001).
11. Thomas W. Merrill, The Story of Chevron: The Making of an Accidental Landmark, 66 ADMIN. L. REV. 253, 275-77 (2014).
12. Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 529-30 (2013);
13. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 446 (1987).
14. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704, 713-14 (2011).
15. 529 U.S. 120 (2000).
16. 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2442 (2014).
17. 549 U.S. 497, 527-29 (2007).
18. 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
19. Jack M. Beermann, Chevron at the Roberts Court: Still Failing After All These Years, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 731, 741-43 (2014);
20. Kristin E. Hickman, The Three Phases of Mead, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 527, 528-30 (2014);
21. Peter L. Strauss, In Search of Skidmore, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 789, 792-93 (2014).
22. James J. Brudney, Chevron and Skidmore in the Workplace: Unhappy Together, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 497 (2014).
23. Miriam Seifter, Federalism at Step Zero, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 633, 646-52 (2014).
24. 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013).
25. 133 S. Ct. at 1877.
26. Int'l Bd. of Teamsters v. ICC, 801 F.2d 1423, 1426 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
27. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005).
28. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984).
29. Smiley v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 739 (1996).
30. Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 VA. L. REV. 187, 207-11 (2006).
31. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844.
32. Thomas W. Merrill, Rethinking Article I, Section 1: From Nondelegation to Exclusive Delegation, 104 COLUM. L. REV. 2097, 2109-14 (2004).
33. Antonin Scalia, Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law, 1989 DUKE L.J. 511, 516-17.
34. Cynthia R. Farina, Statutory Interpretation and the Balance of Power in the Administrative State, 89 COLUM. L. REV. 452, 470-76 (1989).
35. 5 U.S.C. § 500 (2012).
36. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb, 2000bb-1 to 2000bb-4 (2012).
37. Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121, 137 n.9 (1997).
38. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).
39. 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
40. General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 140-46 (1976).
41. Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140.
42. EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 257-58 (1991).
43. 529 U.S. 576 (2000).
44. 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1866 (2013).
45. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 576 (2009);
46. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 883 (2000).
47. Transcript of Oral Argument at 6, City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (Nos. 11-1545, 11-1547) (Breyer, J.);
48. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638, 649 (1990).
49. John F. Duffy, Administrative Common Law in Judicial Review, 77 TEX. L. REV. 113, 199-202 (1998).
50. OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, ADMIN. CONFERENCE OF THE U.S., RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS, RECOMMENDATION 89-5: ACHIEVING JUDICIAL ACCEPTANCE OF AGENCY STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS 31-33 (1989).
51. Christensen, 529 U.S. at 587.
52. Thomas W. Merrill, Judicial Deference to Executive Precedent, 101 YALE L.J. 969 (1992).
53. 5 U.S.C. § 553(a) (2012).
54. 1 RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 6.4 (5th ed. 2010).
55. 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(a) (2000).
56. Mead, 533 U.S. at 223, 233.
57. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302, 309 (1979).
58. Mead, 533 U.S. at 229-31.
59. NationsBank of N.C., N.A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 256-57 (1995).
60. Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law As a Law of Rules, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1175 (1989).
61. Mead, 533 U.S. at 245-46.
62. Lisa Schultz Bressman, How Mead Has Muddled Judicial Review of Agency Action, 58 VAND. L. REV. 1443 (2005);
63. Adrian Vermeule, Introduction: Mead in the Trenches, 71 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 347 (2003).
64. Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 222 (2002).
65. SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 819-20 (2002).
66. Wos v. E.M.A. ex rel. Johnson, 133 S. Ct. 1391, 1402 (2013);
67. Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 487-88 (2004);
68. Wis. Dep't of Health & Family Servs. v. Blumer, 534 U.S. 473 (2002).
69. 551 U.S. 158 (2007).
70. 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
71. Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Se. Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261, 296 (2009);
72. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 244-45 (2005);
73. Raymond Yates M.D., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Herndon, 541 U.S. 1, 24 (2004).
74. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) (2012).
75. City of Arlington v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229, 234-36 (5th Cir. 2012), rev'd, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013).
76. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at Questions Presented, City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (No. 11-1545), 2012 WL 2516693.
77. City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 524 (2012).
78. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1872.
79. Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354, 381-82 (1988).
80. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1868-73.
81. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2012).
82. 133 S. Ct. at 1868-69.
83. In some contexts, judicial jurisdiction is governed by statutes which are wholly separate from whatever law governs the decision on the merits. Federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is an obvious example: the statute governing jurisdiction speaks of the residence of the parties, whereas the merits are determined by applying the appropriate state substantive law. But in other contexts, such as determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the very same statute that establishes jurisdiction also governs the resolution of a claim on the merits. Yet courts somehow manage to resolve the question whether a federal question is presented without confounding this with the resolution of the merits.
84. 133 S. Ct. at 1873.
85. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A) (2012).
86. 5 KENNETH H. YOUNG, ANDERSON'S AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING § 34.31 (4th ed. & Supp. 2008).
87. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012).
88. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976),
89. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985),
90. San Remo Hotel v. City of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005).
91. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 488 (1996).
92. City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1873 n.4 (2013).
93. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 472 (2001),
94. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1873 n.4.
95. 133 S. Ct. at 1874.
96. 535 U.S. 212 (2002).
97. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1875.
98. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (No. 11-1545), 2012 WL 2516693.
99. 133 S. Ct. at 1880.
100. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012).
101. Pub. L. No. 11-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
102. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1883-84.
103. Henry P. Monaghan, Marbury and the Administrative State, 83 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 27 (1983).
104. Nathan Alexander Sales & Jonathan H. Adler, The Rest is Silence: Chevron Deference, Agency Jurisdiction, and Statutory Silences, 2009 U. ILL. L. REV. 1497;
105. Ernest Gellhorn & Paul Verkuil, Controlling Chevron-Based Delegations, 20 CARDOZO L. REV. 989 (1999);
106. Lars Noah, Interpreting Agency Enabling Acts: Misplaced Metaphors in Administrative Law, 41 WM & MARY L. REV. 1463, 1466-67 (2000);
107. Henry P. Monaghan, Marbury and the Administrative State, 83 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 14 (1983).
108. Quincy M. Crawford, Comment, Chevron Deference to Agency Interpretations That Delimit the Scope of the Agency's Jurisdiction, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 957, 958 (1994).
109. Brief of Respondents International Municipal Lawyers Ass'n, et al. at 21-35, City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) (Nos. 11-1545, 11-1547), 2012 WL 5884820.
110. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1873-74.
111. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1874.
112. It may be significant that Justice Scalia never repeats the "force of law"characterization of the required type of delegated authority as it was expressed in Mead.
113. 133 S. Ct. at 1875.
114. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1883.
115. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1884.
116. 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) (2012).
117. Thomas W. Merrill & Kathryn Tongue Watts, Agency Rules with the Force of Law: The Original Convention, 116 HARV. L. REV. 467, 519-20 n.264 (2002).
118. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 377-78 (1999).
119. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984) (EPA);
120. Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606, 616 (1991) (NLRB);
121. Household Credit Servs., Inc. v. Pfennig, 541 U.S. 232, 238 (2004)
122. USV Pharm. Corp. v. Weinberger, 412 U.S. 655 (1973);
123. Weinberger v. Bentex Pharms., Inc., 412 U.S. 645 (1973);
124. Ciba Corp. v. Weinberger, 412 U.S. 640 (1973);
125. Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609 (1973).
126. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704, 713-14 (2011).
127. 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
128. City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1883 (2013).
129. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1868.
130. CASS R. SUNSTEIN, AFTER THE RIGHTS REVOLUTION 142-44 (1990).
131. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005).
132. 47 COLUM. L. REV. 527, 543 (1947).
133. Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 531 U.S. 159, 175 (2001)
134. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 123-26 (1985).
135. NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chi., 440 U.S. 490 (1979).
136. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 576-77 (2009);
137. Smiley v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 744 (1996);
138. Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 550 U.S. 1, 38-44 (2007);
139. Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C., 129 S. Ct. 2710, 2732 (2009).
140. Thomas W. Merrill, Preemption and Institutional Choice, 102 NW. U. L. REV. 727, 755-59 (2008).
141. Kent Barnett, Improving Agencies' Preemption Expertise with Chevmore Codification, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 587 (2014)
142. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 25b(5)(A).
143. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 236 (2000).