In the 2005 Brand X decision, the Supreme Court held that “[a] court’s prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute.” Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet […]
Author Archives: Daniel Hemel
The Chamber of Commerce Has an Anti-Injunction Act Problem, by Daniel Hemel
The Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Texas Thursday seeking to block the Treasury Department’s April 2016 inversion regulations. The Chamber says that the inversion regulations exceed Treasury’s statutory jurisdiction, that the regulations are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and that Treasury failed to follow the APA’s […]
Maybe the IRS Is Complying with the Congressional Review Act After All, by Daniel Hemel
My co-blogger Andy Grewal asked in a post on Tuesday: “Why doesn’t the IRS comply with the Congressional Review Act?” My first thought on reading Andy’s post was: “Yeah, why doesn’t it?” My second thought was: “Maybe it does.” The Congressional Review Act, passed in 1996, allows the House and Senate to block certain federal […]
Chevron Step 0.5, by Michael Pollack and Daniel Hemel
Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the majority in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro is significant for a number of reasons. For one, it marks the first time that the Supreme Court has used a Perma.cc link in an opinion—a victory for the Harvard Law School Library and its Perma.cc partners in their fight against link rot […]
Form, Function, and the Fed, by Daniel Hemel
I’m neither a constitutional law scholar nor an expert on the Federal Reserve, so I’m reluctant to wade deeper into the debate over the Fed’s constitutionality when I’m already beyond neck deep. In an earlier post, I suggested that “ maybe”—but only maybe—“the Federal Reserve banks are constitutional after all,” a claim that struck me […]
The President’s Power To Tax Doesn’t Stop at Carried Interest, by Daniel Hemel
Gretchen Morgenson writes in this week’s New York Times Sunday Business section: There is a lot about this problem of income inequality—and about the economy over all—that Mr. Obama cannot control. Still, there is something he could do right now to help narrow the widening gulf between rich and poor. In one deft move, Mr. […]
More on Amtrak and “Company A,” by Daniel Hemel
In a characteristically thoughtful post discussing the D.C. Circuit’s decision in American Association of Railroads v. Department of Transportation, Aaron Nielson writes: Imagine three companies—let’s call them A, B, and C. Each manufactures cars. Imagine further that Congress authorizes A to regulate B and C, and A uses that power to benefit itself, for instance […]
What Makes This Agency Different From All Other Agencies?, by Daniel Hemel
A D.C. Circuit panel held today that the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) is unconstitutional. This is the second time the same panel has struck down the PRIIA (the first time the panel was reversed by the Supreme Court). The panel’s primary holding is that “the PRIIA violates the Fifth Amendment’s […]
Maybe the Federal Reserve Banks Are Constitutional After All, by Daniel Hemel
Thanks to Chris Walker for organizing this online symposium, to the editors of the Yale Journal on Regulation for hosting it on their site, and—most of all—to Peter Conti-Brown for writing a brilliant book. In this post, I’ll take issue with one of Peter’s conclusions—that “the [Federal] Reserve Banks are almost certainly unconstitutional” (p. 107)—but […]
The Supreme Court Vacancy and the Majoritarian Difficulty, by Daniel Hemel
A central premise in administrative law is that federal judges lack the democratic legitimacy of executive branch officials. As Justice Scalia put it in City of Arlington v. FCC, “unelected . . . federal judges” are “even less politically accountable” than “unelected federal bureaucrats.” A similar sentiment suffuses Justice Stevens’s opinion for the court in […]