Judicial Control of Discretionary Power Used in Administrative Rule-making
Keywords:
Discretionary Power, Administrative Rule-making, “Arbitrary and Capricious” Test, Non-formal Rule-makingAbstract
This article analyzes standards of judicial scrutiny used by the Georgian and the US Supreme Courts to ensure effective control of discretionary power utilized in administrative rulemaking. The first chapter discusses the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act’s (further APA) “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review. Then it explores importance of hard look and deference doctrines. The second chapter studies the Georgian Supreme Court’s approach toward judicial control of discretionary power used in administrative rulemaking. The conclusion summarizes findings of the research.
References
Asimow M., Levin R.M., State and Federal Administrative Law, American Casebook Series, Thomson Reuters, 2009, 592-593.
Bremberg B.P., Pre-Rulemaking Regulatory Development Activities and Sources as Variables in the Rulemaking Fairness Calculus: Taking a Soft Look at Ex-APA Side of Environmental Policy Rulemakings, Journal of Mineral and Law Policy, Vol. 6, 1990/1991, 11.
Duffy J.F., Administrative Common Law in Judicial Review, Texas Law Review, Vol. 77, 1998, 183, 153.
Friendly H.J., Some Kind of Hearing, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 123, 1975, 1307.
Garry P.M., Judicial Review and the “Hard Look” Doctrine, Nevada Law Journal, Vol.7, 2006, 155, 156.
Garland M.B., Deregulation and Judicial Review, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 98, 1985, 526-527.
Jordan W.S. III, Ossification Revised: Does Arbitrary and Capricious Review Significantly Interfere with Agency Ability to Achieve Regulatory Goals Through Informal Rulemaking? Northwestern University Law Review, 2000, 398.
Jordao E., Ackerman S.R., Judicial Review of Executive Policymaking in Advanced Democracies: Beyond Rights Review, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 66, No.1, 2014, 7, 20.
Keller S.A., Depoliticizing Judicial Review of Agency Rulemaking, Washington Law Review, Vol. 84, 2009, 443-444.
Krotoszynski R.J. Jr., History Belongs to the Winners: The Bazelon- Leventhal Debate and the Continuing Relevance of the Process/Substance Dichotomy in Judicial Review of Agency Action, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 58, 2006, 1013.
Lubbers J.S., A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking, 5th ed., American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law, 2012, 429, citing Zaring D., Reasonable Agencies, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 96, 2010, 135.
Lubbers J.S., A Guide To Federal Agency Rulemaking, 5th ed., American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law, 2012, 8, 425, 7.
Liu F., Chevron As a Doctrine of Hard Cases, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2014, 305.
McGrath M.J., Convergence of the Substantial Evidence and Arbitrary and Capricious Standards of Review during Informal Rulemaking, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 54, 1986, 541, 561-562, 552.
McFeeley N.D., Judicial Review of Informal Administrative Rulemaking, Duke Law Journal, 1984, 354, 351.
Merrill T.W., The Story of Chevron: The Making of an Accidental Landmark, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 66, Number 1, 2014, 254, 255-257.
Note, the Judicial Role in Defining Procedural Requirements for Agency Rulemaking, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 87, 1974, 801.
Note, Judicial Review of the facts in informal Rulemaking, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 84, 1975, 1755.
Note, Regulatory Analyses and Judicial Review of Informal Rulemaking, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 91, 1982, 745.
Pierce, R.J. Jr., Waiting for Vermont Yankee II, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 57, 2005, 671-672.
Pierce R.J. Jr., Waiting for Vermont Yankee III, IV, and V? A Response to Beermann and Lawson, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 75, 2007, 905-906.
Reiss D.R., Tailored Participation: Modernizing the APA Rulemaking Procedures, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, Vol. 12, 2008-2009, 366.
Rubin E., It’s time to make the Administrative Act Administrative, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 89, 2003, 140, 141, 142.
Strauss P.L., The Rulemaking Continuum, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 41, 1992, 1466.
Stewart R.B., Vermont Yankee and the Evolution of Administrative Procedure, Comment Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.: Three Perspectives, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 91, 1978, 1812.
Schiller R.E., Rulemaking’s Promise: Administrative Law and Legal Culture in the 1960s and 1970s, Ad¬mi-nistrative Law Review, Vol. 53, 2001, 1154.
Taylor K., The Substantial Impact Test: Victim of the Fallout from Vermont Yankee?, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 53, 1984, 127.
Leland E.B., Agency Practices and Judicial Review of Administrative Records in Informal Rulemaking, Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States, 2013, 6, https://www.acus.gov/sites/de¬fault/fi¬les/do-cuments/Agency%20Practices%20and%20Judicial%20Review%20of%20Administrative%20Records%20in%20Informal%20Rulemaking.pdf.
Burrows V.K., Garvey T., A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review, Congressional Research Service, 4, 2011, 10, http://www.wise-intern.org/orientation/documents/crsrulemakingcb.pdf.
Decision Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Decision of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resource Defense Council Inc. 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
Decision of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Inc. v Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).
Decision N bs-622-610 (K-12) of 23 May 2013 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Decision N bs-107-101(k-07) of July 11, 2007 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Decision N bs-565-534 (k-06) of 31 May 2007 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 TSU Publishing House
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
