The Supreme Court’s most recent term suggests that some justices would revise the doctrine of Chevron deference.
Net neutrality has “bounced” from regulation to repeal under an often-used administrative law doctrine.
Scholar evaluates arguments for scaling back deference doctrines in light of renewed interest in reform.
Scholar argues against using agency interpretations of immigration law in criminal deportation cases.
Cost-benefit analysis is the most preferable form of analysis, and it should continue to be employed for important regulatory decisions.
Previously published essay on The Regulatory Review sparks debate over the role that cost-benefit analysis should play in regulatory decision-making.
Recent cases and proposed legislation reveal decreasing deference to agencies’ interpretation of their own regulations.
When it comes to rulemaking, “It should no longer be sufficient for agency decision makers to assume that the only hurdle they have to meet is simply not being ‘clearly wrong.'”
“Chevron deference has created a regulatory landscape where agencies may in some cases do what they want, rather than what the law requires or allows them to do.”
“If you had to distill the Chevron doctrine to nine words, I do not think you could do better than: ‘When I am confused, I go with the agency.'”
It is time to reconsider the extent to which we apply Chevron.
The Regulatory Review proudly features the remarks of Ann R. Klee, keynote speaker at the Penn Program on Regulation’s annual dinner.