Civil and Human Rights

Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?

Details

Tuesday, June 18, 2019
12:00 pm
National Press Club
First Amendment Room
529 14th St NW
Washington, DC 20045
Federalist Society

Event description authored by host organization. Information here does not necessarily reflect the views of CAC and may not be up to date — please refer to RSVP link for the latest information.


In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?

Please join us Thursday, June 18th for a panel discussion of these essential questions, sponsored by the Article I Initiative and the Regulatory Transparency Project.

Featuring:

Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute

Prof. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law

Prof. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law

Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

Moderator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
November 20, 2025

Supreme Court Could Redefine the Limits of State Power

Newsweek
As the Supreme Court considers Chiles v. Salazar, a case examining Colorado’s 2019 ban on gay conversion therapy...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court is considering whether laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit all transgender women and girls from joining women’s and girls’ sports teams—across...
Civil and Human Rights
November 9, 2025

Supreme Court to hear case on religious rights in prison

Deseret News
Oral arguments on Monday in Landor v. Louisiana will focus on religious liberties while incarcerated.
Civil and Human Rights
November 10, 2025

CAC Release: In Landor Case, Question of Whether Person in Prison Who Suffered Undisputed Religious Liberty Violation Has Any Meaningful Remedy Hangs in the Balance

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Landor v....
Civil and Human Rights
October 7, 2025

Supreme Court Appears Poised to Strike Down Ban on Anti-LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’

The New Civil Rights Movement
The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to strike down a Colorado ban on so-called conversion...
Civil and Human Rights
October 6, 2025

Conversion Therapy Ban Case Tests Traditional State Police Power

Bloomberg Law
A therapist’s challenge to Colorado’s ban on treatment the state says harms LGBTQ+ youths may...