Notice & Comment

Notice & Comment

Notice & Comment

The New Nondelegation: Response to Piatt and Morgan’s “The Three Major Questions Doctrines,” by Brian Chen

There is much hubbub over the major questions doctrine. For good reason. The Supreme Court has lately invoked the doctrine to invalidate sweeping regulatory initiatives, such as the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, OSHA’s workplace vaccine mandate, and the CDC’s eviction moratorium. There is now a cottage industry of law reviews trying to make sense of […]

Notice & Comment

Ad Law Reading Room: “Governing by Assignment,” by Isaac Cui, Daniel E. Ho, Olivia Martin, and Anne Joseph O’Connell

Today’s Ad Law Reading Room entry is “Governing by Assignment,” by Isaac Cui, Daniel E. Ho, Olivia Martin, and Anne Joseph O’Connell, which is forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Here is the abstract: A pillar of administrative law is expertise, but government is increasingly missing experts. The U.S. federal government faces a […]

Notice & Comment

Whose Role Is It Anyway? Distinguishing Corporate Officers From Directors, by Matthew Bisanz, Lawrence Cunningham, and Grace Kim

Most legal entities, like corporations, have officers and directors who, together, run the business. Directors sit on the board of directors and collectively govern and oversee the entity. In contrast, officers generally implement the board’s vision and manage the day-to-day operations of the business.  While there is widespread agreement that the roles and responsibilities of officers and […]

Notice & Comment

The Three Major Questions Doctrines, by Austin Piatt & Damonta D. Morgan

Our recent Essay in the Wisconsin Law Review Forward explores the question, what do multiple versions of the major questions doctrine mean for the future of legislation? We observe that, after West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) and Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S.Ct. 2355 (2023), we now have three versions of the major questions doctrines: The “clear […]

Notice & Comment

Does “Textualism” Really Prevent “Judicial Activism”?  A Response to Prof. John McGinnis, by David Doniger

An essay by John McGinnis, “The Rise and Fall of Chevron,” recently caught my eye. McGinnis, now a professor at Northwestern, writes that as a summer legal intern he assisted Deputy Solicitor General Paul Bator in writing the government’s brief in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council back in 1983. Though we’ve never met, I felt a […]

Notice & Comment

From Justice Stevens’ Papers—Justice Stevens Crafted the Chevron Two-Step Test in an Afternoon, by Isaiah McKinney

Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimando and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, both of which asked the Court to overrule Chevron. By overruling Chevron, what the parties are really asking is that the Court overrule the two-step test from the beginning of the case, not that the Court overrule the final holding that […]

Notice & Comment

Wednesday’s Good Neighbor Argument Showed Why the Supreme Court Should Not be a Court of First Instance in Complex Administrative Law Cases, by Megan M. Herzog and Sean H. Donahue

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a set of stay applications, consolidated under the caption Ohio v. EPA, that ask the Court to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s Good Neighbor Rule. The rule sets out requirements for 23 upwind states to meet their obligations under the Clean Air Act not to contribute to […]

Notice & Comment

Cost-Benefit Analysis in Polarized Times, by Jonathan S. Gould

For a half-century, cost-benefit analysis has been a mainstay of the regulatory state. Presidents of both parties have either promulgated or retained executive orders mandating regulatory cost-benefit analysis. Many have sought to expand its scope. While so much about regulatory law and policy polarizes the two parties, cost-benefit analysis finds support among Republicans and Democrats alike. […]