Gray Matters

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss chat with Patrick A. McLaughlin about The Nondelegation Project at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which analyzes compliance with the nondelegation doctrine using AI and machine learning. He highlights the significant number of regulatory restrictions in the CFR, the role of vague statutes, and the importance of judicial doctrines like the intelligible principle test. The discussion also touches on the project's implications for legislative reform, state-level applications, and the challenges of data collection.Notes:The Nondelegation Project Introduction to the Nondelegation Project, Patrick A. McLaughlin and Mitchell Scacchi RegData project 26 U.S. Code § 7805 (Rules and regulations) 26 U.S. Code § 42 (Low-income housing credit) Harmonizing Delegation and Deference After Loper Bright, Kristin E. Hickman and Amy J. Wildermuth The Virginia Model: How the Commonwealth Build a Best-In-Class Regulatory System, Reeve T. Bull and Patrick A. McLaughlin 

Jace Lington chats with Reeve Bull about his experiences running Virginia’s Office of Regulatory Management. Bull discusses Virginia's recent regulatory reform efforts, highlighting the successful streamlining of regulations and the significant savings achieved. He emphasizes the importance of transparency in the permitting process and the need to balance regulation with economic growth. Bull addresses criticisms of deregulation, particularly concerning health and safety, and explains how Virginia's approach has focused on maintaining essential protections while reducing unnecessary burdens. The conversation also explores the integration of AI in regulatory processes and the importance of considering the impacts on local governments and small businesses.Notes:The Virginia Model: How the Commonwealth Build a Best-In-Class Regulatory System, Reeve T. Bull and Patrick A. McLaughlin Virginia’s New Approach to Regulatory Analysis, 2023 Gray Matters Episode with Andrew Wheeler and Reeve Bull 

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss chat with Hillsdale College Professor Ronald J. Pestritto about his recent article tracing the rise of the administrative state and the revolution it wrought in the federal government. Pestritto explores the evolution of the administrative state, tracing its roots back to the Progressive Era and the shift from a government based on consent to one grounded in expertise. He argues that this transformation has led to a significant disconnect between elected officials and the bureaucratic agencies that wield substantial power without direct accountability to the electorate. The conversation delves into the implications of this shift, particularly in the context of the Trump administration's attempts to rein in the administrative state and the ongoing debates surrounding judicial oversight and legislative responsibility.Notes:Government By the Unelected: How It Happened, and How It Might Be Tamed, Ronald J. Pestritto The Original Progressives Are No Guide for Today's Conservatives, Ronald J. Pestritto

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss chat with Notre Dame Law Professor Jeffery Pojanowski about his forthcoming paper, “Faces of Formalism.” The paper explores the complexities of formalism in legal interpretation, discussing its two faces: authority and method. They delve into concrete examples, such as Gorsuch's application of textualism in the Bostock case, and examine the tensions that arise between these two aspects. Pojanowski offers some ideas about how to look for authoritative answers while respecting rules meant to limit judicial discretion.Notes:Faces of Formalism, Jefferey PojanowskiNeoclassical Administrative Law, Jeffrey Pojanowski

Adam White, Jace Lington, and Bennett Nuss reflect on the significant regulatory developments of 2025, focusing on under-reported stories in the administrative state. They discuss the future of the Federal Reserve, the evolving relationships between public and private entities, the impact of repealing disparate impact laws, and the diminishing role of Congress.Notes:Trump Regulatory Policy: 2025 Compendium, Bridget C.E. Dooling, Notice & Comment BlogThe Brave New World of Administrative Law, Adam White and Bennett Nuss, 2024 A Hard Look Podcast

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss discuss the implications of the Loper Bright decision on administrative law with guest Eli Nachmany. Eli’s forthcoming paper, “Deference Undisturbed,” examines the effects of theLoper Bright decision on prior cases decided under the Chevron framework. They discuss the open legal questions that remain after the end of Chevron, the role of Congress in shaping administrative law, and the future of various deference doctrines.  Notes:Vacatur as Complete Relief, Eli Nachmany, Cato Supreme Court Review Chevron Deference Was Fun While It Lasted, Eugene Scalia, Wall Street Journal 

Jace Lington chats with Vulcan Technologies CEO Tanner Jones about how his company uses AI to help agencies, lawmakers, and businesses navigate the complex world of administrative law. They discuss whether AI systems will replace the industry and government consultants who usually guide people through the layers of law, regulation, and court precedent that affect our world. Notes:Vulcan Technologies Website Restoring Legislative Authority: A Balanced Approach to Agency Deference, Jonathan Wolfson and Tanner Jones Deference article 

Bennett Nuss chats with New Civil Liberties Alliance Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione about the tariff case pending before the Supreme Court, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. They discuss the main arguments about the extent of the president’s power over tariff policy and what the court might decide.Notes:Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional—we’re suing to end them, John J. Vecchione and Andrew J. Morris NCLA’s amicus brief in the Learning Resources case President Donald Trump’s reply brief in the Learning Resources case Prof. Chad Squitieri’s amicus brief in the Learning Resources case Prof. Aditya Bamzai’s amicus brief in the Learning Resources case Adam White at SCOTUSblog on the Learning Resources case 

Jace Lington chats with University of Michigan Law Professor Christopher J. Walker about how to reinvigorate Congress in light of the changing administrative law landscape. They discuss his recent article, Congress and the Shifting Sands in Administrative Law, and his ideas about how Congress can play a larger role in federal policymaking.Notes:Congress and the Shifting Sands in Administrative Law, Christopher J. Walker Delegation and Time, Jonathan H. Adler & Christopher J. Walker Congress’s Anti-Removal Power, Aaron L. Nielson & Christopher J. Walker Post-Chevron Working Group Report, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) 

Jace Lington chats with former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly about what the Constitution says regarding who may exercise the judicial power. They discuss his new Gray Center policy brief, Jarkesy and the End of Political Adjudication, and his argument that the Supreme Court should go further and hold that the Constitution requires many trials now handled by agency adjudicators to take place in the proper forum—an Article III court. Notes:Jarkesy and the End of Political Adjudication, Daniel Kelly

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Beau J. Baumann about his historical research into the Offices of Legislative Counsel. They discuss his forthcoming paper, Resurrecting the Trinity of Legislative Constitutionalism, and how Progressive reformers at the turn of the twentieth century built institutions to arrest congressional decline.Notes:Resurrecting the Trinity of Legislative Constitutionalism, Beau J. Baumann How Chief Justice Taft Wrote the Famous Myers Opinion, with Robert Post, Gray Matters 

Jace Lington chats with Jenn Mascott about Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump. They discuss the Appointments Clause and the broader context of the debate surrounding the special counsel investigation of the former president.Notes:Judge Aileen Cannon's decision in US v. TrumpJustice Thomas's concurring opinion in Trump v. USJenn Mascott's Stanford Law Review article on the Appointments Clause

This is a rebroadcast of a panel discussion from an event we co-hosted on May 15, 2024, with the Manhattan Institute and the Federalist Society. The panelists discuss whether state tort law is an appropriate tool for addressing climate change and the petition for certiorari in Sunoco LP, et al. v. City and County of Honolulu.Featured Speakers:Jonathan Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of LawJames Copland, Senior Fellow and Director of Legal Policy, Manhattan InstituteDonald Kochan, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolJennifer Mascott, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

This is a rebroadcast of the Gray Center's Federal Preemption and Environmental Regulation Webinar. We hosted this event on April 29, 2024, to discuss the issues involved in two pending cases where energy companies have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the Clean Air Act preempts attempts by Honolulu, Hawaii, to redress certain climate change-related alleged injuries. Featured Speakers:Jonathan Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of LawRichard Epstein, New York UniversityEdmund LaCour, Solicitor General of AlabamaJennifer Mascott, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative StateAdam White, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Notes:Video of the Webinar

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with former OIRA Administrator Paul J. Ray about his new paper, “Lover, Mystic, Bureaucrat, Judge: The Communication of Expertise and the Deference Doctrines.” In the paper, Mr. Ray critiques the expertise rationale for Chevron deference, arguing that agency employees can share much of the special knowledge they use to make decisions with reviewing courts. Notes:Lover, Mystic, Bureaucrat, Judge: The Communication of Expertise and the Deference Doctrines, Paul J. Ray Keynote Address and Fireside Chat, October 2023, Chevron on Trial: The Supreme Court and the Future of Agency Authority and Expertise 

The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State and the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy recently hosted a series of webinars ahead of a forthcoming symposium on Equity and the Administrative State. This episode of Gray Matters is a panel discussion from February 23, 2024, about affirmative action and other ways regulators pursue equity through the administrative state featuring Ming Chen, Jesse Merriam, and Bijal Shah, moderated by Kmele Foster.Notes:Video of the Webinar

The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State and the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy recently hosted a series of webinars ahead of a forthcoming symposium on Equity and the Administrative State. This episode of Gray Matters is a panel discussion about the use of racial classifications to make public policy and how race has affected the character of American institutions featuring David Bernstein, Jonathan Berry, and Joy Milligan, moderated by Renée Landers. Notes:Watch a video of the discussion

Jace Lington chats with Scalia Law Professor Donald J. Kochan about Florida and Disney. They discuss his recent paper applying public choice theory to Florida’s Reedy Creek Improvement Act of 1967 and why the special treatment Disney received from the state is not a good model for state and local regulation.Notes:Disney v. Democracy? A Public Choice and Good Governance Analysis of Florida’s Reedy Creek Improvement Act of 1967 and Its Resulting Regime, Donald J. Kochan

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman about lingering issues following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Biden v. Nebraska student loan case. They discuss a recent paper Shugerman presented at a Gray Center research roundtable, “Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine.”Notes:Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman Major Questions About Presidentialism: Untangling the “Chain of Dependence” Across Administrative Law, Jed Handelsman Shugerman and Jodi L. Short Standing Without Injury, Jonathan H. AdlerAn Originalist Defense of the Major Questions Doctrine, Michael D. Ramsey The Major Questions Doctrine: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedy, Thomas W. Merrill The Ghosts of Chevron Present and Future, Gary S. Lawson The Major Answers Doctrine, Lisa Heinzerling The New Purpose and Intent in Major Questions Cases, Anita S. Krishnakumar The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, and Confounded, Ronald M. Levin The Minor Questions Doctrine, Aaron L. Nielson The Major Questions Doctrine Outside Chevron‘s Domain, Adam R.F. Gustafson

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Michael D. Ramsey about how originalists can defend the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon of interpretation. He examines post-ratification court practice and other substantive canons designed by judges to minimize the harms of judicial error when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Ramsey recently presented a paper on this subject at a Gray Center research roundtable.Notes:An Originalist Defense of the Major Questions Doctrine, Michael D. Ramsey The Major Questions Doctrine: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedy, Thomas W. Merrill The Ghosts of Chevron Present and Future, Gary S. Lawson Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman The Major Answers Doctrine, Lisa Heinzerling The New Purpose and Intent in Major Questions Cases, Anita S. Krishnakumar The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, and Confounded, Ronald M. Levin The Minor Questions Doctrine, Aaron L. Nielson The Major Questions Doctrine Outside Chevron‘s Domain, Adam R.F. Gustafson