Showing archive for: “Administrative Law”
Fracking, the Separation of Powers, Economic Welfare, and the Role of the Public (Or Mirabile Dictu! An Obama-Appointed Federal Judge Who Believes in the Separation of Powers)
An interesting thing happened on June 21st. Scott Skavdahl, a federal district court judge appointed by President Barack Obama, invalidated the “Fracking Rule” adopted by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Even more interesting, however, was the fact that, in so holding, the judge relied heavily on a rather dusty, moth-eaten eighteenth century ... Fracking, the Separation of Powers, Economic Welfare, and the Role of the Public (Or Mirabile Dictu! An Obama-Appointed Federal Judge Who Believes in the Separation of Powers)
The FCC’s proposed broadband privacy rules: The harmful effects of regulating without evidence or analysis
Last week the International Center for Law & Economics filed comments on the FCC’s Broadband Privacy NPRM. ICLE was joined in its comments by the following scholars of law & economics: Babette E. Boliek, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine School of Law Adam Candeub, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Assistant Professor of ... The FCC’s proposed broadband privacy rules: The harmful effects of regulating without evidence or analysis
The Third Circuit pushes back on FCC’s unjustified rule on joint sales agreements
While we all wait on pins and needles for the DC Circuit to issue its long-expected ruling on the FCC’s Open Internet Order, another federal appeals court has pushed back on Tom Wheeler’s FCC for its unremitting “just trust us” approach to federal rulemaking. The case, round three of Prometheus, et al. v. FCC, involves ... The Third Circuit pushes back on FCC’s unjustified rule on joint sales agreements
Opening Pandora’s set-top box: ICLE’s comments on the FCC’s “unlocking the box” NPRM
On Friday the the International Center for Law & Economics filed comments with the FCC in response to Chairman Wheeler’s NPRM (proposed rules) to “unlock” the MVPD (i.e., cable and satellite subscription video, essentially) set-top box market. Plenty has been written on the proposed rulemaking—for a few quick hits (among many others) see, e.g., Richard ... Opening Pandora’s set-top box: ICLE’s comments on the FCC’s “unlocking the box” NPRM
Penalizing Innovation: The FAA’s Regulation of Drones
As the late Nobel Laureate James Buchanan and other economists have long pointed out, even in the case of market failure, regulation is only potentially justified if economic welfare under regulation is likely to be higher than under an unregulated market – not an easy test to meet, in light of rampant government failure. Nevertheless, ... Penalizing Innovation: The FAA’s Regulation of Drones
Geoffrey Manne at Cato to Discuss the Federal Circuit’s Error in ClearCorrect
Tomorrow, Geoffrey Manne, Executive Director of the International Center for Law & Economics, will be a panelist at the Cato Institute’s Policy Forum, “The ITC and Digital Trade: The ClearCorrect Decision.” He will be joined by Sapna Kumar, Associate Professor, University of Houston Law Center and Shara Aranoff, Of Counsel, Covington and Burling LLP, and ... Geoffrey Manne at Cato to Discuss the Federal Circuit’s Error in ClearCorrect
Suprema v. ITC: The Case for Chevron Deference
Recently, the en banc Federal Circuit decided in Suprema, Inc. v. ITC that the International Trade Commission could properly prevent the importation of articles that infringe under an indirect liability theory. The core of the dispute in Suprema was whether § 337 of the Tariff Act’s prohibition against “importing articles that . . . infringe ... Suprema v. ITC: The Case for Chevron Deference
The D.C. Circuit Subjects USDA Pork Barrel Politics to Scrutiny – Will the Lower Court Bring Home the “Economic Liberties” Bacon?
Recently, I discussed at this site the Supreme Court’s imposition of takings liability on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), because USDA fined a small raisin grower for refusing to cooperate with the California Raisins Marketing Order – which, stripped of the fancy verbiage, is little more than a government-supervised output limitation cartel. The California ... The D.C. Circuit Subjects USDA Pork Barrel Politics to Scrutiny – Will the Lower Court Bring Home the “Economic Liberties” Bacon?
The Federal Circuit Misapplies Chevron Deference (and Risks a Future “Supreme Scolding”) in Suprema Inc. v. ITC
On August 10, in Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, the en banc Federal Circuit granted Chevron deference to a U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) statutory interpretation in holding that goods that do not directly infringe a U.S. patent at the time they are imported nevertheless may be excluded from entry by the ITC if they are ... The Federal Circuit Misapplies Chevron Deference (and Risks a Future “Supreme Scolding”) in Suprema Inc. v. ITC
ICLE and leading academics file amicus brief urging the court to overturn the FCC’s illegal net neutrality order
Yesterday, the International Center for Law & Economics, together with Professor Gus Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law, and nine other scholars of law and economics, filed an amicus brief in the DC Circuit explaining why the court should vacate the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. A few key points from ICLE’s brief follow, but you can read a longer summary ... ICLE and leading academics file amicus brief urging the court to overturn the FCC’s illegal net neutrality order
One Step Forward: The Supremes Add Some Bite to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis
Today, in Michigan v. EPA, a five-Justice Supreme Court majority (Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, with Thomas issuing a separate concurrence) held that the Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider costs, including the cost of compliance, when deciding ... One Step Forward: The Supremes Add Some Bite to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis
Commissioner Wright Rightly Calls the Question on Section 5 Guidance
Anybody who has spent much time with children knows how squishy a concept “unfairness” can be. One can hear the exchange, “He’s not being fair!” “No, she’s not!,” only so many times before coming to understand that unfairness is largely in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps it’s unfortunate, then, that Congress chose a century ... Commissioner Wright Rightly Calls the Question on Section 5 Guidance
