Administrative Law
The Contract with America
Or, as some critics called it, “the Contract ON America.”
The Contract with America was the brainchild of Newt Gingrich. It was a turning point in American politics: moving the GOP from compromise to confrontation, nationalizing what had previously been locally oriented House races, and shifting the GOP far to the right. There’s a reason they call Gingrich the man who broke Congress.
CONTINUE READINGThe Libertarian Critique of Trump’s “Schedule F”
As it turns out, you can hate BOTH government regulation and Trump’s assault on the “deep state.”
Installing inexperienced ideologues in the executive branch won’t accomplish anything useful and would only make it harder to implement deregulatory policies. The main effect of Schedule F would be gridlock rather than policy change
CONTINUE READINGThe Zombie Myth of Job-Killing Regulations
Some ideas never die, no matter how much evidence piles up against them.
With the Labor Day weekend coming up, let’s talk about jobs. Some myths are like zombies in two ways. They refuse to lie down and die, not matter what you do. And if you aren’t careful, they can eat your brain. An example is the idea that environmental regulation kills jobs. Tragically, this brain worm …
Continue reading “The Zombie Myth of Job-Killing Regulations”
CONTINUE READINGTrump’s Replacement for Project 2025: The “Other” MAGA Plan
It’s not Project 2025, but the “America First Agenda” is worse in some ways.
From the perspective of those who believe in environmental protection, the Trump team’s switch from one rightwing think tank to another doesn’t seem to be much of an improvement. They would both set environmental law back by decades.
CONTINUE READINGThe Impoundment Gambit
Trump plans to use this unconstitutional strategy to reverse congressional priorities and gut environmental agencies.
Trump’s claim of constitutional control over spending would allow him to slash social security or environmental protection with a single stroke his pen, and there would be nothing Congress could do about it.
CONTINUE READINGSchedule F and the Future of the Regulatory State
What is Schedule F? Would it be legal? And why does it matter so much?
Trump has vowed to destroy the “deep state” and to wreak vengeance on his enemies. Something called “Schedule F” is one of the key tools he plans to use as soon as he takes office to “remove rogue bureaucrats,” and he promises to use that tool “very aggressively.”
CONTINUE READINGThe D.C. Circuit and the Biden Power Plant Rule
The court’s denial of a stay is very good news for EPA
The D.C. Circuit frequently denies stays, but this ruling was notable for three reasons: It allows an important climate change regulation to go into effect; it clarified an important legal doctrine; and it has a good chance of being upheld on appeal.
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: A Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing?
The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.
Because there are so many outstanding questions about the Court’s new approach to judicial review, we won’t know its practical impact for some time. Its symbolic impact as an affirmation of conservative ideology is more obvious.
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause
Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.
To cushion the shock of abandoning Chevron, the Supreme Court created a safe harbor for past judicial decisions. This was well-advised. The Court itself applied Chevron at least seventy times, as did thousands of lower court decisions. The key question will be the scope of the grandfather clause. The Court’s discussion began by saying that …
Continue reading “Understanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause”
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore
A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.
Some commentators have tended to write off Skidmore and assume that judges will ignore agency views after Loper Bright. That is a misreading of the Court’s opinions in Loper and in Skidmore itself.
CONTINUE READING