Suchergebnisse

When the Supreme Court decided United States v. Mead Corp. four years ago, Justice Scalia predicted that judicial review of agency action would devolve into chaos. This Article puts that prediction to the test by examining the court of appeals decisions applying the decision. Justice Scalia actually understated the effect of Mead. This Article suggests a remedy for the mess. In Mead, the Court held that an agency is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC only if Congress has delegated to that agency the authority to issue interpretations that carry the force of law, and the agency has used that authority in issuing a particular interpretation. Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that Mead makes an "avulsive change" in judicial review of agency action, the consequences of which "will be enormous, and almost uniformly bad." On his reading, "what was previously a general presumption of authority in agencies to resolve ambiguity in the statutes they have been authorized to enforce has been changed to a presumption of no such authority, which must be overcome by affirmative legislative intent." Lower courts, he warned, would not know what to make of the decision in practice: "We will be sorting out the consequences of the Mead doctrine, which today has replaced the Chevron doctrine, for years to come." Notwithstanding Justice Scalia's doomsday forecast, the majority believed that Mead was justified in principle. The Court stated that Mead "tailors deference to [the] variety" of administrative procedures that Congress envisions and agencies employ. An agency may receive Chevron deference as long as it chooses a proper procedure for issuing interpretations of the statute it administers. Thus, an agency may receive Chevron deference if it chooses a procedure that Congress generally intends to produce interpretations with the "force of law" - as with notice-and-comment rulemaking or formal adjudication. But an agency might not receive Chevron deference when it selects a more informal procedure unless the ...

The mediation of the balance between vigilance and restraint is a fundamental feature of judicial review of administrative action in the Anglo-Commonwealth. This balance is realised through the modulation of the depth of scrutiny when reviewing the decisions of ministers, public bodies and officials. While variability is ubiquitous, it takes different shapes and forms. Dean R. Knight explores the main shapes and forms employed in judicial review in England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand over the last fifty years. Four schemata are drawn from the case law and taken back to conceptual foundations, exposing their commonality and differences, and each approach is evaluated. This detailed methodology provides a sound basis for decisions and debates about how variability should be brought to individual cases and will be of great value to legal scholars, judges and practitioners interested in judicial review.

Fil: De Mattia, Luis Alberto. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales; Argentina. ; Esta tesis destinada al control judicial de constitucionalidad en el proceso administrativo parte del compromiso asignado al Estado de Derecho de protección de los derechos subjetivos vulnerados por actos estatales de facto, ilegales e ilegítimos, y el restablecimiento igualitario de esos derechos a los individuos jurídicos a través de la adjudicación. Su significancia diferencia los sistemas parlamentario, concentrado y difuso; enfrentando en el Derecho Administrativo la aplicación de normas inconstitucionales y sus efectos, traducidos en actos generales o reglamentos. En el sistema difuso, en Argentina, se suceden las teorías de la decisión mínima y de los precedentes, y el principio iura novit curiae, sin satisfacer aquel compromiso; lo cual determina buscar elementos coadyuvantes en fuentes doctrinarias del derecho y disciplinarias afines. Dicha remisión introduce a una noción de ciencia jurídica como método o que piensa el derecho como sujeto epistémico, para arribar al principio de legalidad, jurídico y constitucional; exhibiendo la inseparabilidad entre decisión judicial y control constitucional, los sistemas y otros institutos que lo contienen. Asimismo, exhibe los alcances de dicho control, y del procedimiento administrativo y del proceso judicial administrativo, y también los efectos extra partes o intra parte implícitos en la declaración de inconstitucionalidad. Así, con aquel objeto compatible con la eticidad proveniente del sistema democrático y republicano, se postula reducir la complejidad del procedimiento ante la Administración e incorporar a la sentencias anulatorias de reglamentos generales efectos extra partes, admitiendo la defensa de terceros en pos de tutelar la igualdad y el acceso a la jurisdicción. ; The present thesis is devoted to the Judicial Review of Constitutionality in the Administrative Process and starts from the commitment assigned to the Rule-of-Law State in protecting subjective rights that are violated by illegal and illegitimate de facto actions of state and equally restoring those rights to juridical individuals through adjudication. Its significance distinguishes among parliamentary, concentrated and dispersed systems, thus facing, in Administrative Law, the application of unconstitutional norms and its effects, which are translated into general acts or regulations. In Argentina's dispersed system, the theory of minimal decision-making, the theory of precedents, or the principle of iura novit curiae are held without complying with that commitment, which leads to the search for coadjuvant elements in doctrinal law and law-related disciplinary sources. This referring introduces a notion of Juridical Science as a method or the thinking of law as an epistemic subject to reach the juridical and constitutional principle of legality, thus exhibiting the inseparability of judicial decision and constitutional review, systems and other institutions that contain it. Likewise, it exhibits the scope of review and administrative procedure, and of the administrative judicial process, as well as extra-party or intra-party effects implied in the declaration of unconstitutionality. Thus, with that object that is compatible with the ethicity arising from the democratic and republican system, the postulation aims at reducing the complexity of procedure at the Administration and incorporating extra-party effects into nullifying sentences of general regulations, admitting the defense of third parties to guarantee equality and access to jurisdiction. ; Colegio de Magistrados y Funcionarios de la Provincia de Santa Fe

Solar Panel