\\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\71-3\FRONT713.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-NOV-16 9:26 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW VOLUME 71 ISSUE 3 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ARTHUR T. VANDERBILT HALL Washington Square New York City \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\71-3\FRONT713.txt unknown Seq: 2 17-NOV-16 9:26 New York University Annual Survey of American Law is in its seventy-third year of publication. L.C. Cat. Card No.: 46-30523 ISSN 0066-4413 All Rights Reserved New York University Annual Survey of American Law is published quarterly at 110 West 3rd Street, New York, New York 10012. Subscription price: $30.00 per year (plus $4.00 for foreign mailing). Single issues are available at $16.00 per issue (plus $1.00 for foreign mailing). For regular subscriptions or single issues, contact the Annual Survey editorial office. Back issues may be ordered directly from William S. Hein & Co., Inc., by mail (1285 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14209-1987), phone (800- 828-7571), fax (716-883-8100), or email ([email protected]). Back issues are also available in PDF format through HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org). All works copyright © 2016 by the author, except when otherwise expressly indicated. For permission to reprint an article or any portion thereof, please address your written request to the New York University Annual Survey of American Law. Copyright: Except as otherwise provided, the author of each article in this issue has granted permission for copies of that article to be made for classroom use, provided that: (1) copies are distributed to students at or below cost; (2) the author and journal are identified on each copy; and (3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy. Manuscripts: The Annual Survey invites the submission of unsolicited manuscripts. Text and citations should conform to the 20th edition of A Uniform System of Citation. Please enclose an envelope with return postage if you would like your manuscript returned after consideration. Editorial Office: 110 West 3rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10012 (212) 998-6540 (212) 995-4032 Fax http://www.annualsurveyofamericanlaw.org \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\71-3\FRONT713.txt unknown Seq: 3 17-NOV-16 9:26 For what avail the plough or sail Or land or life, if freedom fail? EMERSON \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\71-3\FRONT713.txt unknown Seq: 4 17-NOV-16 9:26 iv \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\71-3\FRONT713.txt unknown Seq: 5 17-NOV-16 9:26 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW 2015–2016 BOARD OF EDITORS Editor-in-Chief AUSTIN WILKINS Managing Editors KAITLYN GOSEWEHR JACLYN A. HALL MATTHEW J. WILKINS Development Editors Executive Article Editors Senior Articles Editor GREGORY A. ARUTIUNOV SAMUEL J. BECKERMAN CHARLES F. O’TOOLE DANIEL M. STONE IAN C.J. HOGG SARAH WARBURG-JOHNSON MAX GEKTIN JONATHAN HUTCHINSON FERNANDO A. MARTINEZ´ Symposium Editor NICHOLAS J. PELLEGRINO MICHAEL R. ROBERTS Note Editors DANIEL RUDOFSKY JONATHAN D. FLACK Online Editor EMMA TROTTER GEORGIA V. STASINOPOULOS Article Editors SOPHIA BERTRAN DANIEL KACINSKI RESHAMA PATEL AMENEH BORDI NAOMI D. KAPLAN LILY A. PICON ALEXIA BOYARSKY ANDREW M. KAUFMAN SCOTT E. ROSENTHAL ERIN L. CHIZNER KYLE LACHMUND ANDREW H. SENTER PATRICK CORDOVA ZACH D. LANIER JEREMY B. SIMON MATTHEW DALY-GRAFSTEIN ALEXANDER LEVINE MALLORY B. SUEDE MALLORY W. EDEL ROBERT N. LICALZI WEIXIAO SUN HALEY E. GARRETT MARTHA L. LISKOW NATHAN H. TRUNNELL SCOTT G. GREENE JACOB K. MILLIKIN SUSAN WANG DIANA J. HYUN EDWARD MINTURN BIANCA L. WONG BRENDAN INMAN HARRY P. MORGENTHAU NICOLE J. YOON EVAN ORMAN Staff Editors MICHAEL AMENT HEATHER M. GARVEY ELIANA M. PFEFFER ARTHUR J. ARGALL SCOTT GLICKSMAN KELSEY A. POWDERLY LILLIAN J. ASTON RICHARD E. GOLDRING KATHERINE ROSOFF DAVID BARUCH S. RIANE HARPER EKATERINA ROZE ZACHARY H. BENDINER ANDREW M. HARRIS DAVID P. RUTTENBERG HARRY I. BLACK SARAH A. HSU DORAN SATANOVE JEREMY A. BUNTING MAGGIE KORNREICH KYLE S. SHAUB JAMES P. CALLAHAN JESSICA LEPPER CRISTINA M. STILLER CATHERINE CHONG NATALIE LIN DEREK A. SUTTON MICHAEL CINNAMON WESLEY C. MOORE SARAH M. TOPOL GIANPAOLO F. CIOCCO CHLOE NEELY DANIEL TREIMAN HANNAH J. CORNING ALI M. NIERENBERG ALISON WALL AYELET EVRONY SARA N. PAHLAVAN GIANNA C. WALTON ANDREA FEUER GABRIEL A. PANEK DANA WELLESLY-STEIN PHILIP FITZPATRICK ANNA PARNES MAX D. YOELI THEODORE GALANAKIS ADIN PEARL ELIZABETH ZHOU NICOLE C. GARRETT XUE CHU ZHOU \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\71-3\FRONT713.txt unknown Seq: 6 17-NOV-16 9:26 vi \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\71-3\FRONT713.txt unknown Seq: 7 17-NOV-16 9:26 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS ARTICLES “LEAVING THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HEN HOUSE”: OF AGENCIES, JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS Sarah Zeleznikow 275 DAMAGES FOR DECEIT: A CASE STUDY IN THE MAKING OF AMERICAN COMMON LAW Edward J. Normand 333 NOLLE-AND-REINSTITUTION: OPENING THE DOOR TO REGULATION OF CHARGING POWERS Joseph A. Thorp 429 NOTES DEFENDANT CLASS ACTIONS IN BANKRUPTCY: A PRACTICE GUIDE Ameneh Bordi 481 MAGISTRATES AFTER ARKISON & WELLNESS: THE OUTER LIMITS OF CONSENT Benjamin P.D. Mejia 509 \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\71-3\FRONT713.txt unknown Seq: 8 17-NOV-16 9:26 viii \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYS\71-3\NYS301.txt unknown Seq: 1 8-NOV-16 16:46 “LEAVING THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HEN HOUSE”: OF AGENCIES, JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS SARAH ZELEZNIKOW* INTRODUCTION .......................................... 276 R I. FROM “THE CHEVRON REVOLUTION” TO THE ARLINGTON RESOLUTION . 280 R II. JUSTIFYING DEFERENCE . 292 R A. Traditional Justifications for Chevron Deference . 292 R i. Chevron as a Reflection of Congressional Intention .................................... 293 R ii. Chevron as Grounded in Agencies’ Expertise .................................... 294 R iii. Chevron as Effecting or Reflecting the Separation of Powers . 295 R iv. Chevron as Ensuring Democratic Accountability with Respect to Policy Decisions .................................... 296 R v. Chevron as Avoiding Balkanization and Promoting Predictability and Consistency . 297 R vi. Chevron as Providing Drafting Incentives to Congress .................................... 298 R B. Application of Traditional Justifications to the Jurisdictional Determinations Sphere . 298 R i. Congressional Intention Justification . 299 R ii. Expertise Justification . 300 R iii. Separation of Powers and Democratic Accountability Justifications . 302 R iv. Predictability and Consistency Justification . 303 R C. Countervailing Concerns against According Chevron Deference to the Jurisdictional Determinations Sphere . 304 R i. Agency Bias and Self-Interest . 304 R ii. The Logic of the Chevron Doctrine . 309 R * BA/LLB (Hons)/Dip Mod Lang (University of Melbourne); LLM (Harvard). The author would like to thank Professor Vicki C Jackson for her invaluable advice and support in the preparation of an earlier form of this article, and Anna Bodi and Daniel Kinsey for their exceptional editorial guidance. 275 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYS\71-3\NYS301.txt unknown Seq: 2 8-NOV-16 16:46 276 NYU ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW [Vol. 71:275 D. Justice Scalia’s Trump Card? The (In)Determinacy of the Jurisdictional/Non- Jurisdictional Line ............................... 311 R III. DEFERENCE AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS ............................................ 315 R A. Arlington and Questions of Law . 315 R B. The Separation of Powers Implications . 318 R i. Crowell v. Benson ............................. 319 R ii. The “Legislative Courts” Jurisprudence: from Northern Pipeline to Arkison . 321 R C. A Principle of Independent Judgment . 326 R CONCLUSION ............................................. 331 R “‘It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ The rise of the modern administrative state has not changed that duty.”2 INTRODUCTION In May 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its judgment in City of Arlington v. FCC.3 In many circles, the deci- sion was lauded for having resolved a highly contentious question in administrative law: whether the framework for judicial deference to agency action set out in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.4 applied to agencies’ determinations as to their own jurisdiction.5 However, the decision also raises serious con- cerns about the future direction of the Chevron doctrine. In the ma- jority’s affirmation that there is no distinction between “jurisdictional” and “non-jurisdictional” decisions made by agencies for the purposes of assessing Chevron deference, the Court essen- tially gives its imprimatur to agencies’ determinations of purely le- gal questions, without the necessity of a “policy” element which initially justified the development of the Chevron doctrine. This de- velopment seems difficult to reconcile with both the traditional jus- tifications put forward for Chevron deference and the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.6 2. City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1880 (2013) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (quoting in part Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)). 3. Id. at 1863. 4. 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 5. Note, Communications Act of 1934—Chevron Deference—City of Arlington v. FCC, 127 HARV. L. REV. 338, 347 (2013). 6. While this article will generally use the term “separation of powers” to refer to the division of powers between the three branches of government established by \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYS\71-3\NYS301.txt unknown Seq: 3 8-NOV-16 16:46 2016] “LEAVING THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HEN HOUSE” 277 More broadly, Arlington may be viewed as the most recent de-