Susan Rose-Ackerman

Susan Rose-Ackerman Fall 2010 Tues. and Thur., 10:10-12:00 Room 120

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Casebook: Stephen Breyer, Richard B. Stewart, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy, Sixth Edition, and 2009-2010 Supplement (New York: Aspen Law & Business) Available at Labyrinth Bookstore.

Online materials: The reading list is available on the course website on YLS Inside as well as links to reading materials organized by section of the course. There are also links to a number of relevant sites of general interests.

Course Work:

1) Exam: 2/3, Course participation: 1/3. The exam is a take-home, open-book, 24 hour exam, self-scheduled during the exam period using the Law School’s on-line system.

2) Introduce yourself to the class website by logging on and posting a one-paragraph biographical note on the discussion board in the file for the week of September 7. Please mention any experience working for a government agency, in a legislature, or for a lobbying group or advocacy organization.

3) After the shopping period ends, I will divide the class in quarters. Beginning the week of September 13, one quarter of the class members will post a short comment (1-2 pages) on the class website on some aspect of the readings for that week. When you have a comment due, you can post it for either of the classes that week. The postings are not meant to involve any outside reading. The comment MUST be posted the night before the class where we will discuss your topic. That way, I and the other students can read your posting before class. The comments are ungraded but will count toward the overall class participation part of the course. There are 12 weeks when comments are due; thus each student must post at least three comments. If an assigned comment week is bad for you, you can switch with someone else in the class or speak to me about changing the date.

The casebook poses questions at the end of most sections that may be a source of ideas for comments, but you need not limit yourself to those materials. You are always welcome to post additional observations in any weekly file. These might be questions on the reading that you

1 would like to discuss, confusions about material in the readings, comments on the other student's papers, your own ideas, etc.

2 Reading List:

Materials marked BSSV are in the casebook, and Supp. are in the Supplement. All articles and cases not in the casebook have either been scanned into the website or can be reached via links on the reading list. Whenever possible, the link will take you directly to the relevant document. In some cases, it will take you to a web page with a search function. If you experience a problem with any of the links, please report it.

I. INTRODUCTION [September 2]

1. BSSV Chapter 1, pp. 1-29

2. Susan Rose-Ackerman, “Law and Regulation,” in Keith E. Whittington, Dan Kelemen, and Gregory Caldiera, eds. Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 576-594.

3. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Contents and Introduction, to The Economics of Administrative Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007, pp. v-vii, xiii-xxviii

4. Paul R. Verkuil, Chairman Administrative Conference of the United States, Statement to the US House Judiciary Committee, May 20, 2010, pp. 2-4, 9-13. http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Verkuil100520.pdf

The APA and Other Legal Requirements [September 7]

1. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§551-559, 701-706 (omit §552). Appendix A in BSSV. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/pI.html Chapter 5, Subchapter II and Chapter 7.

2. BSSV; Procedural Requirements of the APA – Chapter 6 B.1, pp. 488-494, Supp. pp, 81- 83.

3. Peter Strauss, "From Expertise to Politics: The Transformation of American Rulemaking," Wake Forest Law Review 31:745-777 (Fall 1996).

4. Browse http://www.regulations.gov, http://www.reginfo.gov, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_default, http://www.data.gov and http://www.ombwatch.org to see what kind of information is easily available.

II. THE PRESIDENCY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

3 A: Delegation [September 9] 1. BSSV, Chapter 2, A-C, pp. 31-50, 58-60 (Q5, p. 62), 63-74. Power to legislate and the nondelegation doctrine [Schechter Poultry; Panama Refining; Amalgamated Meat Cutters; Benzene case (Rehnquist concurrence only), American Trucking]

B: The Presidency [September 14, 21 (1/2)]

1. BSSV, Chapter 2.D.1-2, pp. 74-91: The Executive, the Agencies, and Congress (Myers, Humphrey's Executor, Weiner, Chadha,).

2. Ronald A. Cass & Peter L.Strauss, “The Presidential Signing Statements Controversy,” 16 Wm & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 11-25 (2007)

3. Line Item Veto Case: Clinton v. New York, 524 U. S. 417 (1998), [Stevens’ opinion, Kennedy concurrence, and Breyer dissent; omit Scalia’s partial concurrence and dissent and ignore portions of opinion dealing with standing and jurisdiction] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-in/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=524&invol=417

4. Cheney v. US District Court, 124 S. Ct. 2576 (June 24, 2004) (omit II in Kennedy’s opinion) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-475.pdf

5. Bruce Montgomery, “Congressional Oversight: Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s Executive Branch Triumph,” Political Science Quarterly 120: 581-617 (2005-2006)

C: Independent Agencies and Public\Private Divide [September 21 (1/2)]

1. BSSV pp. 91-102 (Bowsher v. Synar, Mistretta)

2. Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U. S. __ (2010) [Roberts’ opinion, omit II, IV, V, Breyer’s dissent, omit III, skim his appendices] [limits to appointment authority] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-861.pdf

3. New Process Steel LP v. NLRB, 560 U. S. __ (2010) [Stevens’ opinion (omit III), Kennedy’s dissent [lack of a quorum] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1457.pdf

4. Daphne Barak-Erez, Three Questions of Privatization, in Susan Rose-Ackerman and Peter Lindseth, eds, Comparative Administrative Law (Elgar, 2011)

D: Adjudication [September 23 (1/2)]

4 1. BSSV, Chapter 2.E, pp. 123-139. Power to Adjudicate; Crowell v. Benson, Northern Pipeline, CFTC v. Schor)

III. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, PRESIDENTIAL OVERSIGHT, AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

A: Presidential Review of Rulemaking [September 23 (1/2)]

1. BSSV, Chapter 2.D.3, pp. 102-122; Supp. pp. 3-13: Presidential control (E.O. 12866 and other presidential review).

2. Elena Kagan, “Presidential Administration,” 114 Harvard Law Review 2246-2253; 2281-2319 (2001)

B: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Risk Assessment, and Data Quality – I [September 28]

1. BSSV, Chapter 4.D., pp. 302-322, 400-402 (risk regulation, cost-benefit analysis, discounting, value of life and health)

2. How to do a cost/benefit analysis according to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/

3. OIRA, OMB and Office of Science and Technology Policy, Updated Principles for Risk Analysis, September 19, 2007 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/m07- 24.pdf

4. Kenneth Arrow, et al., “Is There a Role for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation” 272 Science 221-222 (1996).

5. Henry S. Richardson, “The Stupidity of the Cost-Benefit Standard,” Journal of Legal Studies 29: 971-1003 (June 2000). http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-2530%28200006%2929%3A2%3C971%3ATSOTCS %3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

6. Susan Rose-Ackerman, “Putting Cost-Benefit Analysis in Its Place: Rethinking Regulatory Review,” University of Miami Law Review, forthcoming Winter 2011.

C: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Risk Assessment, and Data Quality – II [September 30]

1. BSSV, Table on pp. 26-27 and Chapter 3. A, B, pp. 141-160, 168-177.

5 2. OMB, 2010 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations, Executive Summary, skim chapters I, II and III and appendices A, B, C, and D. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/2010_Benefit_Cost _Report.pdf

3. Stephen M. Johnson, “Junking the ‘Junk’ Science Law: Reforming the Information Quality Act,” Administrative Law Review 58 (1): 37-83 (2006).

4. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Rethinking the Progressive Agenda: The Reform of the American Regulatory State (New York: Free Press, 1992) Chapters 3 and 6, pp. 33-42, 85-96.

5. Look the comments on regulatory review submitted to OIRA at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/EO/fedRegReview/publicComments.jsp

IV. REGULATORY REFORM: MARKET MECHANISMS AND STRUCTURAL REFORMS [October 5]

1. BSSV, pp. 160-168, 177-190, 252-255.

2. Robert Stavins, “Market-Based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience (and Related Research)?” in Jody Freeman and Charles D. Kolstad, eds. Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007) pp. 19-47.

V. REGULATION AND E-GOVERNMENT [October 7]

1. Supp. pp. 86-91

2. Examine the website of an agency that interests you and put the web address on the discussion board. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and look for current regulatory dockets on an issue or agency of interest.

3. Consult the Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative at http://ceri.law.cornell.edu

4. Cary Coglianese, “E-Rulemaking: Information, Technology, and the Regulatory Process,” Administrative Law Review (Spring 2004) 56:353-357, 363-385 only.

5. ABA, Committee on the Status and Future of E-Rulemaking, Achieving the Potential (2008) http://ceri.law.cornell.edu/documents/report-web-version.pdf

VI. JUDICIAL REVIEW: SCOPE

A: Review of Fact and Law [October 12]

6 1. BSSV, Chapter 4.A, pp. 191-222 (judicial review of questions of fact, Universal Camera, Allentown Mack Sales, Zhen Li Iao).

B: Chevron [October 14, 19, 21]

1. BSSV, Chapter 4.C, pp.228-241 (review of law: US v. 53 Eclectus Parrots, NLRB v. Hearst, Skidmore v. Swift).

2. BSSV, Chapter 4.D, pp. 242-302 ( Chevron, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, Christensen v. Harris County, United States v. Mead, Babbitt v. Sweet Home, MCI v. ATT, Public Citizen v. Young, FDA v. Brown and Williamson), Chapter 2.C, pp. 53-63 (Benzene)

3. Supp. pp. 15-27 (Gonzales v. Oregon, Long Island Care at Home v. Coke), pp. 28-37 (Mass v. EPA), pp. 38-40

C: The “Canons” of Construction; Chevron Step 2; Agency Interpretation of its Own Regulations [October 26]

1. BSSV, Chapter 4.D, pp. 322-347 (Kent v. Dulles, Ohio v. Dept. of Interior); Supp. pp. 40-45 (Entergy v. Riverkeeper), pp. 45-56 (National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X), pp. 58-61 (Fedex v. Holowecki)

2. OfficeMax, Inc. v. US, 428 F. 3d 583 (6th Cir., November 2, 2005) (meaning of “and” in a statute). [in Sutton’s opinion omit III] [rehearing en banc denied.] http://www.lb3law.com/docs/Office_Max_Decision.pdf

3. Comcast v. FCC, __F. 3d__ (D.C. Cir, April 6, 2010) [omit III, IV.A from “The Commissions places ... (p. 36) to end of A] [Role of statements of policy in statutory language in determining delegated authority] http://www.ft.com/cms/db9007aa-419c-11df-865a-00144feabdc0.pdf

4. “FCC Formally Takes First Step Toward Regulation of Broadband as Basic Utility” BNA, Legal News, June 22, 2010, pp. 2770-2772.

5. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Rethinking the Progressive Agenda: The Reform of the American Regulatory State, New York: Free Press, 1992, Chapters 4 and 5, pp. 43-79.

D: The “Arbitrary and Capricious” Standard [October 28]

1. BSSV, Chapter 4.E, pp. 347-404 (Scenic Hudson, Ethyl Corp. Overton Park, State Farm, Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC, Corrosion Proof Fittings v. USEPA); Supp. pp. 63-75 (FCC v Fox)

7 2. Fox Television Stations v. FCC _F. 3d_ (2d Cir., July 13, 2010) [Discussion: II.B, III, IV, unconstitutionally vague] http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/bb56a4df-84df-4695-aee9- 86a80d0d1dc2/1/doc/06-1760- ag_opn2.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/bb56a4df-84df- 4695-aee9-86a80d0d1dc2/1/hilite/

3. American Equity Investment Life Insurance v. SEC, __F. 3d__ (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2009, reissued July 12, 2010):[omit I, II.A] [Cost Estimates in Rulemaking in Independent Agencies]

VII. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN REGULATION [November 2]

1. BSSV, Chapter 6.A-B.1,2,3: pp. 479-488, 495-520 (rules v. adjudication: Londoner v. Denver, Bi-Metallic, SRR v. Va.; NPRA v. FTC, NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon; Morton v. Ruiz; NLRB v. Bell Aerospace; US v. Florida East Coast RR); Supp. pp. 81-83 (Dominion Energy v. Johnson)

[November 4]

1. BSSV, Chapter 6.B.4. 520-544 (notice and comment rulemaking: FPC v. Texaco, Heckler v. Campbell, and judicial transformation of notice and comment rulemaking – US v. Nova Scotia Food Products, Weyerhauser v. Costle, Vermont Yankee); Supp. pp. 84-86.

[November 9]

1. BSSV, Chapter 6.B.5, 6, pp. 544-565 (exceptions from notice and comment rulemaking); American Hosp. Ass’n. v. Bowen, Comment, Nutrition v. Young, ATAA v. DOT); Supp. pp. 91-97 (OMB, Good Guidance Bulletin, 2007)

VIII. REG NEG, TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION PROVISION

A. Regulatory Negotiations [November 11 (1/2)]

1. BSSV, Chapter 6.B.7, pp. 565-574 (regulatory negotiation) (USA Group Loan Services v. USDOE); Appendix C, pp. 975-980, §§561-570 (only); Supp. pp. 97-99 (Energy Policy and Conservation Act)

2. Susan Rose-Ackerman, "Consensus Versus Incentives: A Skeptical Look at Regulatory Negotiation," Duke L. J. 43:1206-1220 (April 1994).

3. Cary Coglianese and Laurie K. Allen, “Does Consensus Make Common Sense?” Environment 46(1):10-25 (Jan/Feb 2004).

8 4. Mark Seidenfeld, “Empowering Stakeholders: Limits on Collaboration as the Basis for Flexible Regulation,” William and Mary Law Review 41:411-414, 445-484, 484-501 (February, 2000).

B. Public Accountability and FOI [November 11 (1/2)]

1. BSSV, Chapter 6.C, E, pp. 584-605, 681-692 (Off-the-Record Communication, Freedom of Information Act, Government in Sunshine Act); Supp. pp. 104-108 (Obama memo).

2. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, in Supp. pp. 131-144 (version in casebook is out of date)

3. Consult the Department of Justice’s web site for the FOIA: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/index.html and http://OpenTheGovernment.org, an NGO website.

IX. ADJUDICATION AND DUE PROCESS [November 16]

1. BSSV, Chapter 6.D.2, 3, 4, pp. 620-626, 649-661, 666-681, (Goldberg v. Kelly, Matthew v. Eldridge, Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc.); Supp. 101-104 (Jones v. Flowers)

2. Abigail Alliance v. Von Eschenbach, 495 F.3d 695 (August 7, 2007), [certiorari denied 1/14/08] [Do terminally ill patients have a due process right to potentially life-saving new drugs?]. http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/04-5350c.pdf

3. General Electric Co. v. Jackson, __F. 3d__ (D. C. Cir. June 29, 2010) [omit portion of III dealing with jurisdiction]

[No class November 18; Thanksgiving break: November 20-28]

X. AVAILABILITY AND TIMING OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

A: Jurisdiction and Reviewability [November 30]

1. BSSV, Chapter 8.A, pp. and 752-757 only; 8.C, pp. 769-813 (Block v. Community Nutrition, Heckler v. Chaney, Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Webster v. Doe; Hamdi); Supp. 109-110.

B: Standing [December 2, 7]

1. BSSV, Chapter 8.D, 4/29: 813-815, 817-856, 5/1: 856-887 (FCC v. Sanders Bros., Assoc. of Data Processing v. Camp, NCUA v. FNB&I, Sierra Club v. Morton, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, Lujan v. NWF, Steel Company v. CBE, Friends of the Earth v.

9 Laidlaw, FEC v. Akins); Supp. pp. 111-125 (Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Mass v. EPA, American Chemistry Council v. DOT).

C: Timing, Ripeness [December 9]

1. BSSV, Chapter 8.E, pp. 887-930 (timing: ripeness, Abbott Labs v. Gardner, etc.; exhaustion) (omit 888-892, 902-908, 930-943); Supp. pp. 125-130 (Woodford v. NGO)

XI: REVIEW: IS THE US A SPECIAL CASE? [December 14]

1. Susan Rose-Ackerman, “Regulation and Public Law in Comparative Perspective,” University of Toronto Law Review 60(2):519-535 (2010)

2. Susan Rose-Ackerman and Peter Lindseth, Comparative Administrative Law: Outlining a Field of Study,” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 28(2) (forthcoming 2010) [A condensed version of the introduction to our edited book, Comparative Administrative Law (Elgar 2011).

[No class December 16]