Notice & Comment

Notice & Comment

Notice & Comment

Can Vermont ask its employers about health-care prices?

It was easy to overlook in the hubbub over the end-of-term cases, but the Supreme Court yesterday morning agreed to hear Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, a case with significant implications for the states’ authority over the health-care sector. At issue in the case is whether Vermont can force health insurers—including employers that self-insure—to tell state […]

Notice & Comment

Michigan v. EPA’s Impact on Cost-Benefit Requirements

In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court invalidated an EPA rule regulating power plant emissions of mercury and other pollutants. This post discusses the decision’s potential impact on cost-benefit jurisprudence generally. All nine justices endorsed the proposition that agencies have a general obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act to consider costs when deciding to regulate. […]

Notice & Comment

Deference’s Discontents

I’d like to chip in with some quick thoughts on recent, skeptical rumblings in the Court about deference to administrative agencies. What interests me most here is not the arguments separate Justices are making against deference—they are not new to administrative law thinking, though their return to judicial discussion is more novel. Rather, I’m wondering […]

Notice & Comment

The IRS Isn’t an Expert?

Today, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in King v. Burwell, holding that the Section 36B premium tax credit extends to taxpayers who acquire healthcare policies on federally established exchanges. The decision probably will not bear much on core tax provisions, but the Court’s reasoning could have major implications for the IRS’s administration of the […]

Notice & Comment

King v. Burwell: Why Is the Scope of Chevron So Unpredictable?

The majority in King v. Burwell surprised many observers by declining to grant Chevron deference to the IRS interpretation of the Affordable Care Act at issue. Instead, the Chief Justice’s opinion held thatChevron does not apply to questions that are of “deep economic and political significance.” This post does not analyze how this decision relates […]

Notice & Comment

What King v. Burwell Means For Environmental Law

Ok, I confess that the title to this post is a bit grandiose. At a minimum, we’ll have much more material on which to base our prognostications about the legality of the Clean Power Plan after Michigan v. EPA is decided on Friday or Monday. But I can’t resist accepting Chris Walker’s invitation to think for just […]

Notice & Comment

Defining Deference Down

CJW Note: Over at SCOTUSblog, there’s a great symposium on King v. Burwell. I thought I’d cross-post, with permission, one of the contributions, by Adam White, that relates to my post yesterday about the effect of King v. Burwell on administrative law. Here is Adam’s post: As many have by now noted, Chief Justice John Roberts asked only […]

Notice & Comment

What King v. Burwell Means for Administrative Law

Today the Court handed down a 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell, upholding the Government’s regulation interpreting the Affordable Care Act to allow for tax subsidies in healthcare exchanges established by the Federal Government. This is a big win for the Obama Administration in a case that most felt could go either way after the […]

Notice & Comment

What King v. Burwell Means for Statutory Interpretation

This morning I blogged about what the 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell means for administrative law (post here). Part of my conclusion there is that the Court’s decision in King chips away at the bright-line rule-based approach to Chevron deference—an approach Justice Scalia has championed—by reinvigorating the major questions doctrine. King, however, constitutes a major […]

Notice & Comment

Administrative Procedure as a Source of Agency Advantage

Procedural requirements like the APA’s notice-and-comment process are often viewed as burdens on agencies to be avoided when possible. My new paper in the Administrative Law Review provides evidence for that view. But this view is not always correct (if it were, many questions in this area would be less interesting!). In some cases, agencies […]

Notice & Comment

The IRS Rewrites the ACA Shared Responsibility Tax

In my prior posts and in a prior article, I’ve explained several circumstances where the IRS has rewritten Section 36B of the tax code, which offers tax credits to persons who purchase health coverage on an exchange established by a state. In this post, I want to discuss how the IRS has, out of thin […]

Notice & Comment

​Did the Court tip its hand about King?

Last Monday, the Supreme Court decided Baker Botts v. ASARCO, a bankruptcy case about whether certain kinds of attorneys’ fees are available under the Bankruptcy Code. In deciding the case, did the Court tip its hand about the outcome in King v. Burwell, as some have speculated? Perhaps. On behalf of a six-justice majority, for […]

Notice & Comment

The Chevron Shuffle and Legislative History

This post’s about a puzzling opinion from the D.C. Circuit. The puzzle has to do with the Chevron two step and legislative history. This puzzle’s important, and not just for King v. Burwell. In Council for Urological Interests v. Burwell (CUI), published last week and available here, the D.C. Circuit shuffled between one view and another […]

Notice & Comment

The FDA’s International Regulatory Cooperative Activities

In my last two posts, I emphasized the relationship between regulatory capacity building, harmonization, and cooperation using examples from the CDC’s and USAID’s experiences in Liberia and Laos. Yet so far as global supply chains go, the FDA is now and since its establishment has been the most important agency with respect to both cooperation […]

Notice & Comment

Mellouli v. Lynch and Brand X

Last week, the Supreme Court decided Mellouli v. Lynch, an immigration adjudication case raisingChevron issues. Chris Walker and Patrick Glen have written excellent posts on the decision here and here, but I thought I would add a few more thoughts. At issue in the case was the BIA’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which authorizes […]