岩石的两边:戈萨奇法官和塞米诺尔人的顺从主义

Kevin O. Leske
{"title":"岩石的两边:戈萨奇法官和塞米诺尔人的顺从主义","authors":"Kevin O. Leske","doi":"10.36640/mjeal.7.2.both","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite being early in his tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch has already made his presence known. His October 16, 2017 statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Scenic America, Inc. v. Department of Transportation garnered significant attention within the legal community. Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the Court’s bedrock 2-part test from Chevron, U.S.A. v. NRDC—whereby courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term—should apply in the case.\n\nJustice Gorsuch’s criticism of the Chevron doctrine was not a surprise. In the months leading up to his confirmation hearing, legal scholars pored over his opinions while he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and they had already unearthed his discomfort with the Chevron doctrine. Similarly, through an analysis of his originalism ideology and textualist approach to judicial decision-making, they have attempted to predict how Justice Gorsuch will decide future cases in other important areas of the law.\n\nTo date, however, Justice Gorsuch’s view on the Seminole Rock deference doctrine has gone unexamined by scholars. Known as Chevron’s “doctrinal cousin,” the Seminole Rock doctrine directs federal courts to defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulation unless such interpretation “is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Especially given the profound practical importance of the doctrine in our administrative state and the Court’s recent interest in it, an assessment of Justice Gorsuch’s view is not merely academic.\n\nThis essay provides that assessment. First, the essay examines the Seminole Rock deference doctrine and explores the Court’s recent interest in the doctrine. Part II analyzes Justice Gorsuch’s likely view on the Seminole Rock doctrine by examining key Tenth Circuit opinions that will influence his view on Seminole Rock while on the Supreme Court. The essay concludes that although Justice Gorsusch would likely be very skeptical of Seminole Rock, he should ultimately choose to retain the doctrine provided that the Court continues to provide safeguards that would mitigate or even mute any perceived over-reach that the application of Seminole Rock allows in our administrative state.","PeriodicalId":401480,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Both Sides of the Rock: Justice Gorsuch and the Seminole Rock Deference Doctrine\",\"authors\":\"Kevin O. Leske\",\"doi\":\"10.36640/mjeal.7.2.both\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite being early in his tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch has already made his presence known. His October 16, 2017 statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Scenic America, Inc. v. Department of Transportation garnered significant attention within the legal community. Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the Court’s bedrock 2-part test from Chevron, U.S.A. v. NRDC—whereby courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term—should apply in the case.\\n\\nJustice Gorsuch’s criticism of the Chevron doctrine was not a surprise. In the months leading up to his confirmation hearing, legal scholars pored over his opinions while he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and they had already unearthed his discomfort with the Chevron doctrine. Similarly, through an analysis of his originalism ideology and textualist approach to judicial decision-making, they have attempted to predict how Justice Gorsuch will decide future cases in other important areas of the law.\\n\\nTo date, however, Justice Gorsuch’s view on the Seminole Rock deference doctrine has gone unexamined by scholars. Known as Chevron’s “doctrinal cousin,” the Seminole Rock doctrine directs federal courts to defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulation unless such interpretation “is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Especially given the profound practical importance of the doctrine in our administrative state and the Court’s recent interest in it, an assessment of Justice Gorsuch’s view is not merely academic.\\n\\nThis essay provides that assessment. First, the essay examines the Seminole Rock deference doctrine and explores the Court’s recent interest in the doctrine. Part II analyzes Justice Gorsuch’s likely view on the Seminole Rock doctrine by examining key Tenth Circuit opinions that will influence his view on Seminole Rock while on the Supreme Court. The essay concludes that although Justice Gorsusch would likely be very skeptical of Seminole Rock, he should ultimately choose to retain the doctrine provided that the Court continues to provide safeguards that would mitigate or even mute any perceived over-reach that the application of Seminole Rock allows in our administrative state.\",\"PeriodicalId\":401480,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.7.2.both\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.7.2.both","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管尼尔·戈萨奇大法官刚刚担任美国最高法院大法官,但他已经表明了自己的存在。他于2017年10月16日就美国风景名胜公司诉交通部一案中拒绝调卷令的声明引起了法律界的极大关注。在首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)和塞缪尔·阿利托(Samuel Alito)法官的支持下,戈萨奇法官质疑法院在Chevron, U.S.A. v. nrdc案中所遵循的两部分标准——即法院必须服从机构对模糊法定术语的合理解释——是否适用于本案。戈萨奇大法官对雪佛龙原则的批评并不令人意外。在他的确认听证会之前的几个月里,法律学者仔细研究了他在美国第十巡回上诉法院担任法官期间的观点,他们已经发现了他对雪佛龙原则的不满。同样,通过分析他的原旨主义思想和司法决策的文本主义方法,他们试图预测戈萨奇法官将如何在其他重要的法律领域裁决未来的案件。然而,到目前为止,戈萨奇大法官关于塞米诺尔岩石尊重原则的观点还没有得到学者们的研究。被称为雪佛龙“理论堂兄弟”的塞米诺尔洛克原则指示联邦法院服从行政机构对其自身法规的解释,除非这种解释“明显错误或与法规不一致”。特别是考虑到这一原则在我们这个行政国家的深远的实践重要性,以及最高法院最近对它的兴趣,对戈萨奇大法官观点的评估不仅仅是学术上的。本文提供了这样的评价。首先,本文考察了塞米诺尔岩石尊重原则,并探讨了法院最近对该原则的兴趣。第二部分分析了戈萨奇法官对塞米诺尔·洛克一案的可能观点,通过考察第十巡回法院的关键意见,这些意见将影响他在最高法院任职期间对塞米诺尔·洛克一案的看法。这篇文章的结论是,尽管戈萨奇大法官可能会对塞米诺尔·罗克案持怀疑态度,但他最终应该选择保留这一原则,前提是法院继续提供保障措施,以减轻甚至消除塞米诺尔·罗克案在我们的行政州所允许的任何被认为的越界行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Both Sides of the Rock: Justice Gorsuch and the Seminole Rock Deference Doctrine
Despite being early in his tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch has already made his presence known. His October 16, 2017 statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Scenic America, Inc. v. Department of Transportation garnered significant attention within the legal community. Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the Court’s bedrock 2-part test from Chevron, U.S.A. v. NRDC—whereby courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term—should apply in the case. Justice Gorsuch’s criticism of the Chevron doctrine was not a surprise. In the months leading up to his confirmation hearing, legal scholars pored over his opinions while he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and they had already unearthed his discomfort with the Chevron doctrine. Similarly, through an analysis of his originalism ideology and textualist approach to judicial decision-making, they have attempted to predict how Justice Gorsuch will decide future cases in other important areas of the law. To date, however, Justice Gorsuch’s view on the Seminole Rock deference doctrine has gone unexamined by scholars. Known as Chevron’s “doctrinal cousin,” the Seminole Rock doctrine directs federal courts to defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulation unless such interpretation “is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Especially given the profound practical importance of the doctrine in our administrative state and the Court’s recent interest in it, an assessment of Justice Gorsuch’s view is not merely academic. This essay provides that assessment. First, the essay examines the Seminole Rock deference doctrine and explores the Court’s recent interest in the doctrine. Part II analyzes Justice Gorsuch’s likely view on the Seminole Rock doctrine by examining key Tenth Circuit opinions that will influence his view on Seminole Rock while on the Supreme Court. The essay concludes that although Justice Gorsusch would likely be very skeptical of Seminole Rock, he should ultimately choose to retain the doctrine provided that the Court continues to provide safeguards that would mitigate or even mute any perceived over-reach that the application of Seminole Rock allows in our administrative state.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信