We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
DEFERENCE AND DIALOGUE IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
- Authors
Meazell, Emily Hammond
- Abstract
An unevaluated phenomenon in administrative law is serial litigation, that is, constant rounds of court challenges and remands that may span decades. Aside from the obvious--these case families are expensive and time-consuming--they also raise serious questions about the respective roles of courts and agencies. When agencies adopt the same rules on successive remands, for example, we might be concerned whether judicial review makes a difference. But when courts review too heavy-handedly, we worry that they are usurping the role of a presidentially controlled, expert institution. This Article is the first to examine these cases and ask what insights they offer for administrative law. The analysis shows that the case families are deeply dialogic; courts and agencies carry out a revealing colloquy over the course of successive reviews and remands. In turn, the dialogue characterization illuminates the respective roles of each institution and suggests a number of problematic features of the interplay between standards of review, remedies, and agency behavior. Foremost among these features is the tendency of the dialogic cases to mimic minimum rationality review, which threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of power between courts and agencies. Faced with this and other concerns, the Article offers practical and theoretical approaches for enhancing the dialogue.
- Subjects
ADMINISTRATIVE law; ACTIONS &; defenses (Administrative law); JUDICIAL review; REMAND (Venue); JUSTICE administration
- Publication
Columbia Law Review, 2011, Vol 111, Issue 8, p1722
- ISSN
0010-1958
- Publication type
Article