Revisiting Deference to Agencies in Criminal Deportation Cases
Scholar argues against using agency interpretations of immigration law in criminal deportation cases.
A Reply to Professor Amy Sinden’s Critique of the “Cost-Benefit State”
Cost-benefit analysis is the most preferable form of analysis, and it should continue to be employed for important regulatory decisions.
A Debate Over the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis
Previously published essay on The Regulatory Review sparks debate over the role that cost-benefit analysis should play in regulatory decision-making.
Courts Regulating the Regulators
Recent cases and proposed legislation reveal decreasing deference to agencies’ interpretation of their own regulations.
Rebuilding Accountability in the Administrative State
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.'”
Putting Foxes in Charge of Guarding Henhouses
“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.”
Chevron’s Lack of Statutory Support
“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.'”
Chevron Undermines Checks and Balances
It is time to reconsider the extent to which we apply Chevron.
Is it Time to Reconsider Chevron Deference?
The Regulatory Review proudly features the remarks of Ann R. Klee, keynote speaker at the Penn Program on Regulation’s annual dinner.
Are IRS Revenue Rulings Eligible for Chevron Review?
Pending Supreme Court tax case raises key statutory interpretation issue.
Reconciling Brown v. Gardner and Chevron
How to fix a statutory interpretation anomaly arising in veterans’ law cases.