寻找斯基德莫尔

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Fordham Law Review Pub Date : 2013-06-30 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2287343
P. Strauss
{"title":"寻找斯基德莫尔","authors":"P. Strauss","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2287343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a coup en banc, Justice Scalia appears to have converted his lonely and furious dissent from United States v. Mead Corp. into the eight to one majority holding in City of Arlington v. FCC. Much will doubtless be said about this opinion, as about all Chevron matters generally, but to note here is that 186 years of precedent for the proposition that judges interpreting statutes involving agency authority should give substantial weight to agency views have simply disappeared. Whether agencies have authority to act, a legal question, is either all Chevron (the majority) or no deference at all (Chief Justice Roberts' dissent). The centuries-old proposition Justice Jackson captured in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. receives passing mention only in the solitary opinion of Justice Breyer.Perhaps as remarkable is that the statutory command that agency conclusions must be reasonable has also disappeared. \"Permissible\" is now the judicially enforceable limit, if this opinion is to be believed.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Search of Skidmore\",\"authors\":\"P. Strauss\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2287343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a coup en banc, Justice Scalia appears to have converted his lonely and furious dissent from United States v. Mead Corp. into the eight to one majority holding in City of Arlington v. FCC. Much will doubtless be said about this opinion, as about all Chevron matters generally, but to note here is that 186 years of precedent for the proposition that judges interpreting statutes involving agency authority should give substantial weight to agency views have simply disappeared. Whether agencies have authority to act, a legal question, is either all Chevron (the majority) or no deference at all (Chief Justice Roberts' dissent). The centuries-old proposition Justice Jackson captured in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. receives passing mention only in the solitary opinion of Justice Breyer.Perhaps as remarkable is that the statutory command that agency conclusions must be reasonable has also disappeared. \\\"Permissible\\\" is now the judicially enforceable limit, if this opinion is to be believed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fordham Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fordham Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2287343\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2287343","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一次政变中,大法官斯卡利亚似乎将他在美国诉米德公司案中孤独而愤怒的反对意见转化为阿灵顿市诉联邦通信委员会案中8比1的多数意见。毫无疑问,对于这一观点,人们会说很多,就像对雪佛龙公司的所有案件一样,但这里要注意的是,186年来关于法官解释涉及机构权力的法规时应充分考虑机构意见这一主张的先例,已经完全消失了。机构是否有权采取行动,这是一个法律问题,要么是雪佛龙(多数),要么根本不服从(首席大法官罗伯茨的异议)。杰克逊大法官在斯基德莫尔诉斯威夫特公司案(Skidmore v. Swift & Co.)中提出的几个世纪前的主张,只在布雷耶大法官的单独意见中被提及。也许同样值得注意的是,关于机构结论必须合理的法定命令也消失了。如果这种观点可信的话,“允许”现在是司法上可强制执行的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
In Search of Skidmore
In a coup en banc, Justice Scalia appears to have converted his lonely and furious dissent from United States v. Mead Corp. into the eight to one majority holding in City of Arlington v. FCC. Much will doubtless be said about this opinion, as about all Chevron matters generally, but to note here is that 186 years of precedent for the proposition that judges interpreting statutes involving agency authority should give substantial weight to agency views have simply disappeared. Whether agencies have authority to act, a legal question, is either all Chevron (the majority) or no deference at all (Chief Justice Roberts' dissent). The centuries-old proposition Justice Jackson captured in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. receives passing mention only in the solitary opinion of Justice Breyer.Perhaps as remarkable is that the statutory command that agency conclusions must be reasonable has also disappeared. "Permissible" is now the judicially enforceable limit, if this opinion is to be believed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.
期刊最新文献
Using a Hybrid Securities Test to Tackle the Problem of Pyramid Fraud Resurrecting Free Speech Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight Against Fake News Airbnb in New York City: whose privacy rights are threatened by a Government Data grab? Free money, but not tax-free: a proposal for the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1