行政法作为新联邦主义

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Gillian E. Metzger
{"title":"行政法作为新联邦主义","authors":"Gillian E. Metzger","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1095327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Few doubt the tremendous impact the modern national administrative state has had on our federal system. Yet the relationship between federalism and administrative law remains strangely inchoate and unanalyzed. Although administrative law's constitutional dimensions are generally recognized to have significant federalism implications, more run-of-the-mill administrative law concerns are rarely approached through a federalism lens. Recent Supreme Court case law suggests that the blinders to the relationship of federalism and administrative law may be lifting. In a number of highly contentious recent decisions, the Court has refused curb Congress's regulatory authority on constitutional grounds, but nonetheless indicated that federalism concerns with protecting the states' independent regulatory role nonetheless retain traction. The means by which the Court appears to be addressing such concerns, however, is administrative law. As a result, administrative law may be becoming the new federalism.This article aims to explore how the Court may be employing administrative law as a surrogate for constitutional federalism and to assess how well administrative law performs this surrogacy role. I conclude that administrative law has important federalism-reinforcing features, but that the Court's decisions to date have failed to fully develop administrative law's federalism potential. I also argue that the best approach - not only for the functioning of federal agencies but, critically, for the continued vibrancy of federalism in the world of the modern federal administrative state - is for the Court (and Congress and the President) to advance federalism within the overall rubric of administrative law, rather than to treat federalism as a more absolute restriction on agency action absent express congressional authorization.The article consists of four parts. Part I contains an analysis of recent Supreme Court precedent, focusing in particular on five decisions addressing the intersection of federalism and administrative law. Part II advances the claim that administrative law may be becoming the new federalism. Here I contend that the Court is unwilling to curb Congress on federalism grounds and that federalism concerns instead are being incorporated into administrative law. I then examine two ways in which federalism concerns are being addressed through an administrative law framework: application of ordinary administrative law to the benefit of the states and development of more extraordinary federalism-inspired administrative law analyses. I also discuss the current administrative preemption debate, which I contend approaches the relationship between federalism and administrative law in overly narrow terms, emphasizing the conflict between federalism and administrative law rather than their potential synergies.Part III switches to a more normative and theoretical perspective. I begin with an analysis of whether using administrative law as a surrogate for federalism concerns is a legitimate judicial undertaking. I conclude that it is, and underscore the benefits of the administrative law approach over other subconstitutional federalism doctrines. I then examine whether, even if legitimate, using administrative law as a surrogate for federalism concerns is likely to prove effective. In addition to rejecting claims that administrative agencies are categorically ill-suited to protecting state regulatory autonomy, I emphasize the need to distinguish between agencies and administrative law. In that vein, I argue that three features of administrative law reinforce its federalism potential: its procedural mechanisms, in particular notice-and-comment rulemaking; its doctrinal and institutional capaciousness; and its very status as subconstitutional law. Part IV assesses the implications of this analysis of administrative law's federalism potential. One implication is that the Court should employ administrative law with an eye to reinforcing agencies' sensitivity and responsiveness to state interests. A second is that federalism concerns raised by federal agency action may be best advanced through ordinary administrative law, albeit with express recognition of how state interests factor into judicial review. Although the Court's recent decisions make some helpful steps in this direction, their lack of clarity and reflection on how federalism concerns should factor into application of administrative law limit their generative potential.","PeriodicalId":47625,"journal":{"name":"Duke Law Journal","volume":"57 1","pages":"2023-2109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2008-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Administrative Law as the New Federalism\",\"authors\":\"Gillian E. Metzger\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1095327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Few doubt the tremendous impact the modern national administrative state has had on our federal system. Yet the relationship between federalism and administrative law remains strangely inchoate and unanalyzed. Although administrative law's constitutional dimensions are generally recognized to have significant federalism implications, more run-of-the-mill administrative law concerns are rarely approached through a federalism lens. Recent Supreme Court case law suggests that the blinders to the relationship of federalism and administrative law may be lifting. In a number of highly contentious recent decisions, the Court has refused curb Congress's regulatory authority on constitutional grounds, but nonetheless indicated that federalism concerns with protecting the states' independent regulatory role nonetheless retain traction. The means by which the Court appears to be addressing such concerns, however, is administrative law. As a result, administrative law may be becoming the new federalism.This article aims to explore how the Court may be employing administrative law as a surrogate for constitutional federalism and to assess how well administrative law performs this surrogacy role. I conclude that administrative law has important federalism-reinforcing features, but that the Court's decisions to date have failed to fully develop administrative law's federalism potential. I also argue that the best approach - not only for the functioning of federal agencies but, critically, for the continued vibrancy of federalism in the world of the modern federal administrative state - is for the Court (and Congress and the President) to advance federalism within the overall rubric of administrative law, rather than to treat federalism as a more absolute restriction on agency action absent express congressional authorization.The article consists of four parts. Part I contains an analysis of recent Supreme Court precedent, focusing in particular on five decisions addressing the intersection of federalism and administrative law. Part II advances the claim that administrative law may be becoming the new federalism. Here I contend that the Court is unwilling to curb Congress on federalism grounds and that federalism concerns instead are being incorporated into administrative law. I then examine two ways in which federalism concerns are being addressed through an administrative law framework: application of ordinary administrative law to the benefit of the states and development of more extraordinary federalism-inspired administrative law analyses. I also discuss the current administrative preemption debate, which I contend approaches the relationship between federalism and administrative law in overly narrow terms, emphasizing the conflict between federalism and administrative law rather than their potential synergies.Part III switches to a more normative and theoretical perspective. I begin with an analysis of whether using administrative law as a surrogate for federalism concerns is a legitimate judicial undertaking. I conclude that it is, and underscore the benefits of the administrative law approach over other subconstitutional federalism doctrines. I then examine whether, even if legitimate, using administrative law as a surrogate for federalism concerns is likely to prove effective. In addition to rejecting claims that administrative agencies are categorically ill-suited to protecting state regulatory autonomy, I emphasize the need to distinguish between agencies and administrative law. In that vein, I argue that three features of administrative law reinforce its federalism potential: its procedural mechanisms, in particular notice-and-comment rulemaking; its doctrinal and institutional capaciousness; and its very status as subconstitutional law. Part IV assesses the implications of this analysis of administrative law's federalism potential. One implication is that the Court should employ administrative law with an eye to reinforcing agencies' sensitivity and responsiveness to state interests. A second is that federalism concerns raised by federal agency action may be best advanced through ordinary administrative law, albeit with express recognition of how state interests factor into judicial review. Although the Court's recent decisions make some helpful steps in this direction, their lack of clarity and reflection on how federalism concerns should factor into application of administrative law limit their generative potential.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Duke Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"2023-2109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"33\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Duke Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1095327\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Duke Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1095327","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

摘要

几乎没有人怀疑现代民族行政国家对我们联邦制度的巨大影响。然而,联邦制和行政法之间的关系仍然奇怪地处于初级阶段,没有得到分析。虽然行政法的宪法维度通常被认为具有重要的联邦制含义,但更多的普通行政法问题很少通过联邦制的镜头来处理。最近最高法院的判例表明,联邦制和行政法之间关系的障碍可能正在解除。在最近一些极具争议的判决中,最高法院拒绝以宪法为由限制国会的监管权力,但仍然表明,联邦主义对保护各州独立监管角色的关注仍然具有吸引力。然而,法院处理这些问题的手段似乎是行政法。因此,行政法可能成为新的联邦制。本文旨在探讨最高法院如何利用行政法作为宪法联邦制的替代品,并评估行政法如何很好地发挥这一替代作用。我的结论是,行政法具有加强联邦制的重要特征,但迄今为止,最高法院的判决未能充分发挥行政法的联邦制潜力。我还认为,最好的方法——不仅是为了联邦机构的运作,而且至关重要的是,为了联邦制在现代联邦行政国家的世界中继续保持活力——是法院(以及国会和总统)在行政法的总体框架内推进联邦制,而不是将联邦制视为在没有国会明确授权的情况下对机构行动的更绝对限制。本文由四个部分组成。第一部分包括对最近最高法院判例的分析,特别侧重于解决联邦制和行政法交叉问题的五项裁决。第二部分提出行政法可能成为新的联邦制的主张。在此,我认为,最高法院不愿以联邦制为由限制国会,相反,联邦制的关切正在被纳入行政法。然后,我考察了通过行政法框架来解决联邦制问题的两种方式:将普通行政法应用于各州的利益,以及发展更特别的受联邦制启发的行政法分析。我还讨论了当前关于行政优先权的争论,我认为这种争论过于狭隘地处理了联邦制和行政法之间的关系,强调了联邦制和行政法之间的冲突,而不是它们之间潜在的协同作用。第三部分转向更规范和理论的视角。我首先分析了使用行政法作为联邦制关切的替代品是否是一项合法的司法事业。我的结论是,它是,并强调行政法方法优于其他次宪法联邦制理论的好处。然后,我将研究,即使是合法的,使用行政法作为联邦制关切的替代品是否可能被证明是有效的。除了驳斥行政机构绝对不适合保护国家监管自主权的说法外,我还强调有必要区分机构和行政法。在这方面,我认为行政法的三个特征加强了它的联邦制潜力:它的程序机制,特别是通知和评论规则制定;其理论和制度的能力;以及它作为宪法附属法律的地位。第四部分评估了这一分析对行政法的联邦制潜力的影响。其中一个含义是,法院应采用行政法,着眼于加强机构对国家利益的敏感性和反应性。其次,联邦机构行动引发的联邦制问题可能最好通过普通行政法来推进,尽管明确承认国家利益如何影响司法审查。虽然最高法院最近的判决朝着这个方向迈出了一些有益的步骤,但它们缺乏明确性和对联邦主义关切应如何纳入行政法适用的思考,限制了它们的产生潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Administrative Law as the New Federalism
Few doubt the tremendous impact the modern national administrative state has had on our federal system. Yet the relationship between federalism and administrative law remains strangely inchoate and unanalyzed. Although administrative law's constitutional dimensions are generally recognized to have significant federalism implications, more run-of-the-mill administrative law concerns are rarely approached through a federalism lens. Recent Supreme Court case law suggests that the blinders to the relationship of federalism and administrative law may be lifting. In a number of highly contentious recent decisions, the Court has refused curb Congress's regulatory authority on constitutional grounds, but nonetheless indicated that federalism concerns with protecting the states' independent regulatory role nonetheless retain traction. The means by which the Court appears to be addressing such concerns, however, is administrative law. As a result, administrative law may be becoming the new federalism.This article aims to explore how the Court may be employing administrative law as a surrogate for constitutional federalism and to assess how well administrative law performs this surrogacy role. I conclude that administrative law has important federalism-reinforcing features, but that the Court's decisions to date have failed to fully develop administrative law's federalism potential. I also argue that the best approach - not only for the functioning of federal agencies but, critically, for the continued vibrancy of federalism in the world of the modern federal administrative state - is for the Court (and Congress and the President) to advance federalism within the overall rubric of administrative law, rather than to treat federalism as a more absolute restriction on agency action absent express congressional authorization.The article consists of four parts. Part I contains an analysis of recent Supreme Court precedent, focusing in particular on five decisions addressing the intersection of federalism and administrative law. Part II advances the claim that administrative law may be becoming the new federalism. Here I contend that the Court is unwilling to curb Congress on federalism grounds and that federalism concerns instead are being incorporated into administrative law. I then examine two ways in which federalism concerns are being addressed through an administrative law framework: application of ordinary administrative law to the benefit of the states and development of more extraordinary federalism-inspired administrative law analyses. I also discuss the current administrative preemption debate, which I contend approaches the relationship between federalism and administrative law in overly narrow terms, emphasizing the conflict between federalism and administrative law rather than their potential synergies.Part III switches to a more normative and theoretical perspective. I begin with an analysis of whether using administrative law as a surrogate for federalism concerns is a legitimate judicial undertaking. I conclude that it is, and underscore the benefits of the administrative law approach over other subconstitutional federalism doctrines. I then examine whether, even if legitimate, using administrative law as a surrogate for federalism concerns is likely to prove effective. In addition to rejecting claims that administrative agencies are categorically ill-suited to protecting state regulatory autonomy, I emphasize the need to distinguish between agencies and administrative law. In that vein, I argue that three features of administrative law reinforce its federalism potential: its procedural mechanisms, in particular notice-and-comment rulemaking; its doctrinal and institutional capaciousness; and its very status as subconstitutional law. Part IV assesses the implications of this analysis of administrative law's federalism potential. One implication is that the Court should employ administrative law with an eye to reinforcing agencies' sensitivity and responsiveness to state interests. A second is that federalism concerns raised by federal agency action may be best advanced through ordinary administrative law, albeit with express recognition of how state interests factor into judicial review. Although the Court's recent decisions make some helpful steps in this direction, their lack of clarity and reflection on how federalism concerns should factor into application of administrative law limit their generative potential.
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The first issue of what was to become the Duke Law Journal was published in March 1951 as the Duke Bar Journal. Created to provide a medium for student expression, the Duke Bar Journal consisted entirely of student-written and student-edited work until 1953, when it began publishing faculty contributions. To reflect the inclusion of faculty scholarship, the Duke Bar Journal became the Duke Law Journal in 1957. In 1969, the Journal published its inaugural Administrative Law Symposium issue, a tradition that continues today. Volume 1 of the Duke Bar Journal spanned two issues and 259 pages. In 1959, the Journal grew to four issues and 649 pages, growing again in 1970 to six issues and 1263 pages. Today, the Duke Law Journal publishes eight issues per volume. Our staff is committed to the purpose set forth in our constitution: to publish legal writing of superior quality. We seek to publish a collection of outstanding scholarship from established legal writers, up-and-coming authors, and our own student editors.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信