The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Kavanaugh on Major Questions, Chevron, and US News Rankings
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed questions on a range of questions at a recent Notre Dame symposium.
Earlier this week, the Notre Dame Law Review hosted its annual Federal Courts symposium (which results in an annual federal courts issue of the journal).
The keynote of the event was a question-and-answer session with Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, moderated by Notre Dame Dean Marcus Cole.
During the session, Justice Kavanaugh discussed multiple administrative law topics, including Chevron, the Major Questions doctrine, and the APA, as well as other topics related to legal education, including the U.S. News & World Report law school rankings.
Of note, Justice Kavanaugh did not disparage Chevron, or suggest that it needs to be curtailed, but said that he is a "footnote 9 person," in that he thinks courts have to carefullly scrutinize the relevant statutory language, using all of the traditional tools of statutory construction. A consequence of this approach, he explained, is that courts will not be in a position to consider deferring to agency interpretations nearly as often, so there will be less need to cite or reference Chevron as such. By contrast, non-footnote 9 people, Justice Kavanaugh suggested, are more willing to defer to agencies in the face of complex statutory schemes.
On the Major Questions Doctrine, Justice Kavanaugh referenced his own writing as a judge on the D.C. Circuit, and older cases such as the Benzene decision, and argued the doctrine embodies a common sense intuition that Congress does not "hide elephants in mouseholes," and has much in common with other presumptions that are routinely applied in statutory interpretation, such as the presumption against retroactivity.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"addressed questions on a range of questions"
Proofread your shit.
Sir, I salute you and applaud your own estimable lack of errors.
You can be damned sure if I were submitting something to the VC main page I would at least read it through once. Adler’s errors are distracting and notorious — and he rarely corrects them. I don’t know why he expects his target audience to have more regard for his own writing than he does. If there’s a typo in the headline or the lede, I’m out.
Prof. Alder’s mistakes are not especially numerous or serious in the general context of this blog.
Christ, what an asshole.
. . . who evidently never heard of Today in Supreme Court History.
If only.
Big deal. It's not even wrong. It's just bad style.
...and so begins another day at the VC.
Yup, seven posts and not a single one that has anything to do with the subject of the OP.
Is there much debate on the Court about lower courts needing to more actively apply the usual rules of construction before deciding that a statute is ambiguous? Kisor v. Wilkie (2019) makes it seem like, at least in an Auer (regulatory ambiguity) case, there's close to unanimity on the question.
Is Notre Dame a favorite among all of the Supreme Court’s conservatives, or just among the conservative Catholics?
That could be a trick question.
His view on Chevron feels right to me, as opposed to the more hardline view that it should be discarded completely.