Prof Ron Levin

Prof, @WUSTL. @ABAAdLaw, @acusgov. Dispensing administrative wisdom and unwisdom since 1978.

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

Q.: Why did I wait until 2023 to join Twitter? (More than one answer may be correct.)
1) Waiting for the Musk Era!
2) Procrastination.
3) Thought I might be too mild-mannered for Twitter.
4) Had to join in order to participate in a @LawAndGovernance program on Twitter Spaces.

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

(4/4) For those who are not (yet) ready to read a full-length law review article making this case, a short summary of it is available here: https://t.co/8vOH7JEraY.

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

(1/4) Now in print! My long-pending article on the major questions doctrine has been published at 112 Calif. L. Rev. 899 (2024), https://t.co/H2VmWyxRMu.

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

(3/4) The explanation for the MQD seems to be the Court’s feeling that an agency should not be able to take bold action unless Congress has been very clear in authorizing it. That ideological premise should play no part in what ought to be the neutral fabric of administrative law

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

Knowing that many would be upset about the demise of Chevron, Roberts would never have been tactless enough to rub it in by letting the case be known as “Relentless.”

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

Whether to call the case that overruled Chevron “Loper” or “Loper Bright” is the subject of a burning, or at least smoldering, debate. https://t.co/V6HMjwkOHK

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

Regardless, I differ from learned colleagues, including @ https://t.co/bNXlYC6Rih https://t.co/6ium1qzncs, who lament that the case was not captioned “Relentless.” https://t.co/gVI0ydIzTu

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

Just published on CNN: My thoughts on Loper Bright. It “may not be an occasion for alarm, but it is an occasion for regret that administrative law has lost something valuable.” https://t.co/vSGTrxXkUU

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

In this sense, Loper Bright does signal an upcoming regime of reduced deference, but its significance may to a great extent be symbolic or emblematic rather than causal. (5/5)

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

I was writing about judicial review of agency legal interpretations well before Chevron, and I observed firsthand what the doctrine was like in those days. (1/5) https://t.co/INL2vEqDiD

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

In this sense, Loper Bright does signal an upcoming regime of reduced deference, but its significance may to a great extent be symbolic or emblematic rather than causal. (5/5)

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

@richardjpierce Here's a link to that brief: https://t.co/ZbEAzH38EH

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

New amicus brief in SEC v. Jarkesy by Alan Morrison, @richardjpierce, and myself argues that (1) SEC ALJs may not be removed without cause, notwithstanding Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, and (2) SEC adjudication does not violate the 7th Amendment. https://t.co/ZbEAzH38EH

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

The dissent continues: "It may yield important benefits over jury trials in federal court, such as greater efficiency and expertise, transparency and reasoned decisionmaking, as well as uniformity, predictability, and greater political accountability.” (2/2)

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

The dissent in today’s Jarkesy decision (p. 37) cites the amicus brief of “Administrative Law Scholars” (Alan Morrison, @richardjpierce, and myself) for its recognition that “(t)here are good reasons for Congress to set up a scheme like the SEC’s.” (1/2)

[Prof Ron Levin @ronmlevin]

@PrimeNewYork @rickhasen In cases that are tried in federal court only because the parties come from different states, state substantive law applies. Gasperini held that the NY law was substantive because it was intended to limit damage awards – effectively, a tort reform statute.