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
April 19, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Uphold the 14th Amendment and Block an Oregon Law Criminalizing Homelessness?

Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched economic...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 18, 2024

DEI critics were hoping that the Supreme Court’s Muldrow decision would undermine corporate diversity programs. It does no such thing

Fortune
The Supreme Court just delivered a big win for workers and workplace equality–but conservatives are...
Civil and Human Rights
April 17, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Decision Today Is Important Win for Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Civil and Human Rights
April 15, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court should accept broad agreement among civil rights plaintiff, police, and the federal government in malicious prosecution case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chiaverini v....
Civil and Human Rights
April 5, 2024

Supreme Court Divides Gavin Newsom and Progressives

Newsweek
An upcoming Supreme Court case has divided Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom and progressives. Nearly 90 amicus briefs...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court is considering whether city ordinances that punish the status of being homeless impose “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.