Civil and Human Rights

Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?


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.


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
July 12, 2019

Justice Ginsburg on Life Lessons and Gender Equality

Hundreds of lawyers, scholars, students, and members of the public recently gathered for an event...
By: Jazmine Steele
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Bostock v. Clayton County; Altitude Express v. Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC

In three cases, Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, the Supreme Court is considering whether Title VII—the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination “because...
Civil and Human Rights
June 3, 2019

Justices Just Made It Harder for Employers to Dismiss Job Bias Lawsuits

National Law Journal
The unanimous decision struck down a Texas county’s attempt to avoid a Title VII lawsuit.
Civil and Human Rights
June 3, 2019

RELEASE: Victory for Access to Courts in Battle Against Discrimination

“While this case may have flown under the radar, it is nonetheless important: because of...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Civil and Human Rights
May 29, 2019

Kamala Harris wants an abortion rights law modeled on the Voting Rights Act. Here’s why that could work.

The Washington Post
Over the past few months, several states have moved to severely limit access to abortion,...
Civil and Human Rights
May 27, 2019

Abortion: Democrats and Republicans whip up voters on extreme state laws

The Guardian
Some Republicans think their party has gone too far in Alabama, Missouri and elsewhere. Democrats...