204 research outputs found
Public Accountability of Advisory Committees
The final paper from the symposium on public participation in Risk management discusses existing procedures for ensuring the integrity of advisory committee recommendations. It concludes that they are inadequate and argues that accountability would be better served if nonexperts were included. It also suggests that, in any event, measures need to be taken to indicate, e.g., the bases for committee conclusions
Resolving Technological Controversies in Regulatory Agencies
Professor Shapiro notes that, e.g., advisory committees may increase technical accuracy at the price of delaying already slow rule making and urges Congress and the courts to provide agencies with broad procedural discretion
Blowout: Legal Legacy of the Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe:The Complexity of Regulatory Capture: Diagnosis, Causality, and Remediation
Rulemaking Inaction and the Failure of Administrative Law
The Trump administration may be the first presidency to go four years without promulgating new significant regulations to protect people and the environment. Although administrative law protects regulatory beneficiaries when agencies revoke or modify previous rules, those protections evaporate when an agency rejects a rulemaking petition, fails to answer a petition for years, or fails to work on pending regulatory protections. In effect, the courts have outsourced agency accountability for rulemaking inaction to political oversight, but as a defense of the interests of regulatory beneficiaries, political accountability is the âMaginot Lineâ of oversight. Despite the difficulty of judging an agencyâs claim that it has higher priorities or that it needs more time to make a decision, judges should require more detailed explanations. Although less trusting judicial review is not without its problems, the current approach of abject deference to agency inaction ignores Congressâ commitment to protect people and the environment as specified in an agencyâs mandate
Judicial Incentives and Indeterminacy in Substantive Review of Administrative Decisions
Uppsatsen tydliggör och beskriver innehĂ„llet i elva lokala överenskommelser (LĂK) mellan civilsamhĂ€llet och offentlig sektor. Studien visar ocksĂ„ hur relationen mellan parterna avspeglas i texterna. Uppsatsen visar ocksĂ„ pĂ„ hur olika idĂ©er och synsĂ€tt i överenskommelserna kan fĂ„ praktiska konsekvenser för civilsamhĂ€llet
Judicial Incentives and Indeterminacy in Substantive Review of Administrative Decisions
In the Chevron and State Farm cases the Supreme Court announced what appeared to be controlling standards for substantive review of administrative decisions. Instead, the Chevron framework has broken down, and State Farm has been all but ignored by agencies and the courts, including the Supreme Court. This article accounts for this breakdown by analyzing the impact of judicial incentives on substantive review in administrative law
- âŠ