Analyzing the Aftermath of Kisor, the Census Case, and the DACA Repeal Case

Image for post
Image for post

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. …

About

Center for the Study of the Administrative State

The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School (administrativestate.gmu.edu).

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store