Copyright (c) 1993 Washington College of Law, The American University
Adminstrative Law Journal
Group Discussion on the Supreme Court's Recent Administrative Jurisprudence
7 Admin. L.J. Am. U. 287
MR. ROSS: Before we open the floor, I have a question for the panelists. As we have looked at the Supreme Court's docket, and to stay with the cinematic terminology, are there any box office blockbusters out there on the docket waiting to happen? Or is this going to be a hohum season, similar to the summer of 1992?
PROFESSOR SARGENTICH: I hesitate to predict. I am sure there will be continued Chevron applications. But at present I cannot point to one particular blockbuster coming up.
JUDGE WALD: I have not looked at all the cases on which the Court has taken certiorari, and many have not come that far. We will have a better idea in another week when the Court's session begins.
To repeat a cinematic allusion, I would say there are some "light sleepers" as a result of this term. But it is mostly in hints of things to come. Justice Scalia is one of the primary authors of opinions that make you think--whenever he makes an aside--"is this going to go someplace?" Boston & Maine seemed to suggest that reviewing courts should no longer look for adequate rationales from agencies, but that they should focus on the single issue of whether the agency's action conflicts with something specific in the statute. If the answer is no, the agency is home free. The plaintiffs in Lujan had attacked a procedural regulation requiring consultation between the Bureau of Wildlife and agencies involved in building projects abroad ...
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.