On January 8, 2020, the Federalist Society's Practice Group Podcast featured a teleforum on Baldwin v. U.S. – now pending at the certiorari stage at the U.S. Supreme Court – and on the future of the Court's decision in NCTA v. Brand X Services, Inc. (2005). The call included an incisive critique of Brand X from constitutional and administrative law standpoints. Brand X is a progeny of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984). The call's participants discussed the relationship between Brand X deference and Chevron deference as well as conceptual distinctions between them.
FSF President Randolph May has written numerous publications going back several years addressingChevron, Brand X, and related decisions involving judicial deference to agency decisions. Here are just a few of his more recent publications:
- Randolph J. May, "The Ongoing Saga of Chevron and Net Neutrality," Perspectives from FSF Scholars, Vol. 14, No. 33 (Oct. 21, 2019);
- Randolph J. May, "Delegation, Deference, and the FCC," FSF Blog (Jul. 12, 2019);
- Randolph J. May, "Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Views on Chevron Deference at the FCC and Beyond," Perspectives from FSF Scholars, Vol. 13, No. 32 (Aug. 6, 2018);
- Randolph J. May "Notes for NARUC," FSF Blog (Jul. 21, 2016); and
- Randolph J. May, "Chevron Decision's Domain May Be Shrinking,"Perspectives from FSF Scholars, Vol. 10, No. 23 (Jul. 7, 2015).
Posts
