In April the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, announced its programmatic agenda for 2020–2021. This included our initial slate of “research roundtable” workshops to support scholarship on a variety of pressing topics, a list that included at least one roundtable on “Judicial Review After Kisor and the Census Case.” Today, to coincide with the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Gray Center is formally calling for papers on “Judicial Review in an Increasingly Undeferential Age.”
Recent years have seen a variety of justices and judges question judiical doctrines regarding the degrees of deference that courts afford agencies in judicial review of agency action. From agencies’ statutory or regulatory interpretations, to their policy reasoning, to their factual and predictive judgments, to their use of enforcement discretion, we see calls for recalibration—or fundamental reconsideration—of the proper relationship between courts and agencies in judicial review of agency action (and inaction). These issues have been exemplified by the Court’s recent decisions in Kisor v. Wilkie, Department of Commerce v. New York, and now, today, in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. …
(UPDATE, June 30: We are grateful for all the proposals we received. Both roundtables are both full.)
Last month I announced the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State’s 2020–2021 agenda for supporting new scholarship on the administrative state. As the announcement explained, the Gray Center’s first two research roundtables will focus on lessons learned from the Covid-19 crisis: “Public Health: Regulation, Innovation, and Preparation,” and “Administration in Crisis: Pandemics, Financial Crises, and Other Emergencies.”
The first is intended to focus on ways in which technological innovation and prudent administration can help to make our country more resilient against threats to public health. …
I’m pleased to announce the first seven scholarly research initiatives that the Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State is organizing for the 2020–2021 academic year.
In its first four years, the Center has focused nearly equally on two programmatic initiatives:
In the next year, however, the Gray Center is planning to significantly reallocate its resources toward research roundtables. While the Center will still host several public events—including its annual George Mason Law Review Administrative Law Symposium, which I’ll discuss in a moment—the Center’s predominant focus in the year ahead will be to incubate new scholarship on the most important questions arising from administrative law and public administration. Instead of relying so heavily on in-person conferences, we will find new ways to bring important new research and analysis into the public arena. …
Each year, the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State fosters legal, economic, and political-science scholarship with a series of private “research roundtables,” at which scholars discuss early-stage papers centered around a selected theme. (We’ve incubated roughly 60 papers so far, in about three years. They’re all available on our web site.) The scholars reconvene, months later, to discuss their fully developed papers at a public policy conference.
With the 2018–2019 academic year winding down, it’s now my great pleasure to announce the Gray Center’s two Fall 2019 research roundtables.
If you are a legal scholar, economist, or political scientist working on these issues, then please do not hesitate to contact me with proposals, at [awhite36 at gmu dot edu]. The Gray Center offers substantial honoraria to all authors, who agree to present a very short summary (approximately 15 to 20 pages) at the initial research roundtable, and a full public draft paper at the subsequent public policy conference. …
Our laws are written by democratically elected legislators, and administered by the appointees of a democratically elected president.
But that democracy is itself governed by law — including, of course, laws established by independent commissions and other administrative actors, such as the Federal Election Commission, state districting commissions, and regulatory ethics officers. These ground rules can significantly affect elections, legislation, and administration .
How does the administrative process affect democratic elections? What should principles of administrative law and political science teach us about the current workings of these commissions and other administrators? …
Welcome to the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School.
For more updates, follow @AdLawCenter on Twitter.