Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


The Rise of Administrative Law

11/2/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Nicholas Williams
Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, planning on majoring in political science.
​Administrative law, the body of law that regulates the actions of administrative government agencies, has become increasingly important. Indeed, the Supreme Court barred the Trump administration from putting a question on the 2020 Census that asked people their citizenship status because the Court found that the Census Bureau gave a pretextual reason for their decision to enstate such a question. This was found to be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act [1], which governs the formulation and establishment of regulations by federal agencies [2]. This is only one of numerous lawsuits that have been filed against the Trump administration regarding violation of the act [3]. In recent years, numerous Supreme Court cases have been decided that seek to challenge precedent regarding administrative law. In the Court’s 2018 term, two important administrative law cases were decided: Kisor v. Wilkie and Gundy v. United States.
Kisor v. Wilkie involved a case wherein a veteran, James Kisor, was denied disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1982 [4]. In 2006, Kisor appealed the decision, and in light of new information, the VA granted Kisor’s request for disability benefits. However, instead of retroactively applying the benefits Kisor missed from 1982-2006, the department only gave him benefits starting in 2006, as they viewed the new information to not be “relevant” to the original claim in 1982. Under existing federal law, veterans are allowed to collect benefits from the VA if they have a disability. The VA had issued regulations stating that, in order to qualify for retroactive benefits, any new information must be “relevant” to the original claim. Thus, in Kisor’s case, the VA was interpreting a regulation that the agency themselves had made. Kisor thus appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, claiming that the VA should not be able to interpret an ambiguous regulation that applies to itself.

In making this appeal, Kisor was asking the Court to overturn Auer v. Robbins (1997), a Supreme Court decision which held that courts should defer to an agency when interpreting ambiguous regulations that apply to that agency. This doctrine is known as the Auer deference. The Court ended up ruling unanimously against Kisor, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and John Roberts. Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion concurring in the judgement but largely disagreeing with much of the majority opinion’s reasoning, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. He wrote that while the specifics of the case merited a decision for the VA and against Kisor, the Auer deference should nevertheless be overturned. Neither Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, or Kavanaugh joined Kagan’s opinion.

In Gundy v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of an interpretation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, passed in 2006 [5]. The law established a national registry for sex offenders, and it explicitly stated that everyone convicted of a sex crime after its passage had to register as a sex offender with the federal government. However, it was unclear as to whether those convicted before passage of the law had to register. Then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales thus made the decision that the law should apply to those convicted of a sex crime prior to 2006, including Herman Gundy. Thus, a federal agency, in this case the Department of Justice, had taken up the responsibility of interpreting an ambiguous congressional statute.

Gundy challenged the provision under the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from delegating too much power to other branches of government. Basically, Gundy believed that he should not have to register because Congress did not explicitly say that he had to register. Thus, the case hinged on whether Congress allocated too much power to the executive branch in allowing the Department of Justice to decide whether those convicted of a sex crime after 2006 should have to register as sex offedners in a national registry.

The Court ended up ruling against Gundy 5-3. A plurality opinion was written by Justice Kagan and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Because only four justices joined the opinion, rather than the five needed to constitute a majority, Kagan’s opinion did not set a Supreme Court precedent. Justice Alito also ruled against Gundy, but he did not join Kagan’s opinion because he did not agree with its reasoning. He conceded that the Supreme Court needs to review the nondelegation doctrine, but he ruled for the federal government in this specific case. Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Gorsuch, on the other hand, ruled for Gundy, agreeing that allowing the Department of Justice to make such an interpretation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was a violation of the nondelegation doctrine. Only eight justices took part in the case because it was heard in early October, before Justice Kavanaugh was on the Court. With Kavanaugh on the Court, the Court’s conservative justices could expand the nondelegation doctrine in future cases. This would give federal agencies less power to interpret federal laws.

One may wonder why these cases are so important. Both of them deal with how much power regulatory agencies should have, and in both of them, the Court was just short of a majority that would reign in the power of federal agencies. Federal agencies, from the Food and Drug Administration to the Social Security Administration, have jurisdiction over matters which cover large swaths of daily life. If agencies had less latitude in interpreting laws and regulations, Congress would have to be more explicit when writing laws, spelling out exactly how laws should be implemented. This would take power out of the hands of unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the people’s representatives.

​However, we are living in a time of extreme congressional gridlock. It is hard for Congress to agree on much of anything. Increasingly, new policy comes from regulations and orders issued by the executive branch rather than laws. Looking back on the Supreme Court’s decision surrounding the citizenship question, it is important to note that Congress had neither explicitly authorized nor disallowed such a question from being on the Census, which further illustrates the lack of clarity in congressional lawmaking. In the face of gridlock, should Congress simply be able to transfer their power to the executive branch? It will be up to the courts to decide.

​​The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
References
[1] "Department of Commerce v. New York." Oyez. Accessed October 26, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-966
[2] “Facts about the Administrative Procedure Act.” Laws.com. Accessed November 1, 2019. https://administrative.laws.com/administrative-procedure-act
[3] Barbash, Fred and Paul, Deanna. “The real reason the Trump administration is constantly losing in court.” Washington Post. March 19, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html
[4] "Kisor v. Wilkie." Oyez. Accessed October 26, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-15
[5] Stern, Mark Joseph. “The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Ready to Take a Wrecking Ball to the Entire Federal Bureaucracy.” Slate. June 20, 2019. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-conservatives-gundy-sex-offender.html
Photo Credits:
​Velasquez, L. white concrete dome museum. Medium. https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1520525003249-2b9cdda513bc?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=2100&q=80
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.