U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–906 PDF 2015

S. Hrg. 114–33 

EXAMINING THE PROPER ROLE OF JUDICIAL 

REVIEW IN THE FEDERAL REGULATORY PROCESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL 

MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 28, 2015 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL 

MANAGEMENT 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JON TESTER, Montana 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN CUADERESS, Staff Director 

ERIC BURSCH, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 1 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2015 

Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis, and Chair, Judicial Review Committee for 

the Administrative Conference of the United States ........................................ 3 

Andrew M. Grossman, Associate, Baker and Hostetler LLP, and Adjunct 

Scholar, The Cato Institute ................................................................................. 5 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Grossman, Andrew M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Levin, Ronald M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE PROPER ROLE OF JUDICIAL 

REVIEW IN THE FEDERAL REGULATORY 

PROCESS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY,

AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL MANAGEMENT,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Lankford, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lankford, Portman, Ernst, Heitkamp, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Good morning. This is the second in a series 

of hearings the Subcommittee will hold examining the issues and 

solutions surrounding Federal regulations. 

I want to welcome our witnesses. Thank you, gentlemen, for 

being here today. We are fortunate today to have two witnesses 

who are experts in the field of administrative law. I thank you for 

your thoughtful written testimony and look forward to speaking to 

both of you. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the role of the judiciary in the Federal rulemaking process. Since the founding of this country, Article 

III courts have served as the final guardians of our Constitution, 

providing independent judgment, applying law to the facts in the 

case before them. 

In the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice 

John Marshall articulated the role of judicial review, declaring it 

is emphatically the providence and duty of the Judicial Department 

to say what the law is. From that moment forward, it has been established the courts are entrusted with the duty to invalidate laws 

that are incompatible with our Constitution. 

However, as the administrative law State has expanded, the 

courts have deferred more and more to agencies, substituting agency judgment for their own. As a result, the modern administrative 

State has blurred the lines that once separated the Legislative 

Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. 

For example, with more and more frequency, we see examples of 

an Executive Branch agency that creates the rules, interprets the 
2 

meaning of those rules, and enforces those rules according to their 

own interpretation. We must ask fundamental questions about the 

constitutionality of such a scheme. 

In the realm of administrative law, Congress clearly intended for 

the courts to review delegated agency action. The Administrative 

Procedures Act requires the courts to decide all relevant questions 

of law and interpret constitutional and statutory provisions. Today, 

we have an opportunity to consider these and other issues in an 

effort to examine the proper role and duty of the courts in the Federal rulemaking process. 

I look forward to discussing these issues with our members and 

witnesses today, and I understand full well these are heady issues 

and difficult things to struggle with. We probably will not resolve 

this in the next hour—— [Laughter.] 

Though if we would, it would help the Nation. But, this is a great 

conversation to initiate where are we, how did we get here, and 

what are some solutions to get out of this in a way that actually 

helps what we are going to do as a Nation and as we function 

through very difficult areas of administrative law and deference in 

decisionmaking. 

With that, I would like to recognize Ranking Member Heitkamp 

for her opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Chairman Lankford. 

Today’s hearing continues our Subcommittee’s examination of the 

overall topic of Federal regulatory policy. I look forward to hearing 

from both of our witnesses today on judicial review of the regulatory process and how to best approach that review. 

It is critical that Congress continues to review how Federal agencies operate as well as how Congress interacts as a body with other 

branches of the government. This is especially true on the issue of 

regulation, regulation today that touches every facet of our society. 

In examining this issue, I think it is critically important to take 

a look at our current system. 

In the regulatory process which has matured over time, legislative action and judicial review—are those processes flexible enough 

to handle most circumstances? Does it offer fair consideration to 

concerns of business and everyday Americans? Does Congress and 

the Administration, both of which are elected by and responsible to 

the people, maintain that critical role in advancement of regulation? 

Those are just some of the fundamental questions we have to 

consider any time we delve into reforming our regulatory process. 

Our Nation needs both effective and efficient regulation. 

Obviously, a huge part of that regulation is what happens after 

those regulations are promulgated and how do we best have a system of analyzing and reviewing regulation, and as we talk about 

judicial review, one thing that we have forgotten is that once regulations are promulgated, nothing prevents the Congress from also 

responding if, in fact, the will of the Congress is not done. And, so, 

I think all too often, Congress abrogates its responsibility on oversight of regulation to the judiciary, creating further uncertainty 

and a lack of ability to actually respond, leaving it up to the judici-
3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Levin appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

ary. I think today, we are in exactly that situation with King v. 

Burwell. 

And, so, I look forward to this testimony. I think that this is incredibly important, and as somebody who, as a lawyer, practiced in 

this area, I look forward to hearing the shortened version of your 

testimony and I want to congratulate you both before we begin at 

the high quality of the work that was done on behalf of this Committee in preparing for this testimony. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing this important subject and I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Let me give the introduction of our witnesses and then we will 

go straight to your testimony. 

Andrew Grossman is an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute 

and practices appellate and constitutional litigation in the Washington, D.C. office of Baker and Hostetler LLP. Prior to joining 

Cato as an Adjunct Scholar, Mr. Grossman was affiliated for over 

a decade with the Heritage Foundation, most recently serving as 

Legal Counsel to Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and 

Judicial Studies. 

Ronald Levin is the William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor 

of Law at Washington University in St. Louis. Professor Levin also 

currently serves as a public member of the Administrative Conference of the United States and Chair of its Judicial Review Committee. 

It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses 

that appear before us, so if you do not mind, I would like to ask 

you to stand and raise your right hand. Thank you. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony that you will give before 

this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. LEVIN. I do. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I do. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the 

record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We are using a timing system today. We have received your full 

testimony, which is extensive, and we appreciate very much your 

written testimony for that. We would ask that you keep your oral 

testimony to around 5 minutes. I will be graceful in my protection 

of the clock today, since we have the two witnesses. 

Mr. Levin, I am very glad that you are here and we would be 

honored to receive your testimony first. 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD M. LEVIN,1 WILLIAM R. ORTHWEIN 

DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF LAW, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS, AND CHAIR, JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Mr. LEVIN. OK. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member 

Heitkamp, thank you for the privilege of testifying today. 

All of us agree, I know, that judicial review of the regulatory 

process provides an essential check on abuses by the Executive 
4 

Branch. In the past, Congress has from time to time passed legislation that opened up access to judicial review by removing unfounded jurisdictional barriers. That legislation was necessary in 

its time, and today, the Administrative Conference is continuing to 

work on proposals for improvements, such as the reform of Court 

of Federal Claims jurisdiction that I have discussed in my written 

statement. 

On the whole, however, the existing system for judicial review of 

regulations is functioning pretty well, in my judgment, and it does 

not seem to need a major overhaul. And, in that context, I am 

going to discuss two pending ideas for change that, in my judgment, are not promising. 

One of them was advanced by Dr. Jerry Ellig at a hearing of 

your Committee 2 months ago. He proposed that the methodology 

that agencies use in conducting cost-benefit analysis should be 

made judicially enforceable. This is a dubious idea, in my view, because courts are not expert in the complex and subtle techniques 

of policy analysis and also because it is not necessary. 

The administrative law system has for many years operated with 

a better alternative. Studies that are produced through regulatory 

analysis are routinely included in the administrative record and 

courts do consider whether the ultimate rule is reasonable in light 

of that record. Well, experience shows that review can be quite 

probing and it gives agencies a strong incentive to conduct their 

analyses carefully. 

The second topic that I have been asked to address is the doctrine known as Auer deference. Essentially, this doctrine means 

that the Federal courts should generally hesitate to overturn an 

agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. Agencies do not get 

a blank check, but they do get some leeway to allow them to implement their mandates effectively. 

Since 2011, however, several Justices of the Supreme Court have 

called Auer deference into question, most recently in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association last month, and so I want to briefly describe why I disagree with their critique. 

Justice Scalia, who has led this charge, has criticized Auer deference on separation of powers grounds as well as policy grounds. 

The constitutional argument is that fundamental separation of 

powers principles are offended when the task of writing laws and 

interpreting laws rests in the same hands. 

It is true that administrative agencies routinely write regulations 

and interpret them later, but they have done this for decades and 

the court has never seriously questioned the constitutionality of 

that arrangement. Of course, the Constitution does mandate some 

divisions of responsibility among the branches, such as between the 

roles of Congress under Article I and the President under Article 

II. But, Justice Scalia’s principle has not been traditionally recognized in the very different context of the relationship between 

courts and agencies. 

So, if we are going to adopt a new principle of this kind, we need 

to ask whether the extension of doctrine would serve a convincing 

modern day purpose. And, supposedly, it does. Critics of Auer argue 

that the doctrine gives the agency an incentive to write vague regulations because the agency can then interpret them without the re-
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Grossman appears in the Appendix on page 52. 

straints of rulemaking procedure, but still receive deferential review. 

Well, the problem with that theory is that its proponents have 

never cited any evidence that agencies actually do write vaguer 

regulations because of this incentive. The incentive may exist, but 

so too does a rulemaking agency face countless other incentives 

pressing in various directions, ranging from the political program 

of the Administration to the desire to satisfy stakeholders. We simply have no clear sense of how much difference the Auer incentive 

makes, if it makes any at all. And, to me, that abstract argument 

against deference is far too weak to justify throwing out a judicial 

review doctrine that has been well accepted for decades. 

Finally, even if it were a good idea to abolish or modify Auer, I 

believe Congress should leave that job to the courts. Case by case 

development of doctrine can be sensitive to the enormous variety 

of situations that can arise in this area, but a statutory response 

is likely to be too inflexible and give rise to unintended consequences. 

That completes my statement and I will be happy to respond to 

your questions. Thank you again for asking me to testify. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Mr. Grossman. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW M. GROSSMAN,1 ASSOCIATE, BAKER 

AND HOSTETLER LLP, AND ADJUNCT SCHOLAR, THE CATO 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Heitkamp, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing 

today and for inviting me to testify. 

My statement today, like my written testimony, focuses on the 

intersection of the constitutional separation of powers and administrative law. This is, I think, a surprisingly hot topic of late, and 

it should be. 

As the Chief Justice wrote in a recent dissent, the Framers could 

hardly have envisioned today’s vast and varied Federal bureaucracy and the authority administrative agencies now hold over our 

economic, social, and political activities. We must be attentive, he 

said, to, quote, ‘‘the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative State, and it is Congress, in particular, that must pay 

attention, because it is Congress that authorizes the components of 

the administrative State and it is Congress whose intentions are 

thwarted when agencies come to view their authorizing statutes as 

springboards and statutory restrictions as speed bumps. The citizen 

confronting thousands of pages of regulations,’’ the Chief Justice 

observed, ‘‘can perhaps be excused for thinking that it is the agency 

that is really doing the legislating. That should be no small matter 

to the actual Legislative Branch.’’ 

I agree with the Chief Justice that deferential judicial review of 

agency actions is responsible, in part, for this phenomenon. Congress, after all, plays no role in the execution of the laws, and so 

it is the courts that provide the vital check on agencies to ensure 

that they carry out Congress’s will. Yet, for so many years, that aspect of judicial review took a back seat to concerns over judicial ac-
6 

tivism, which, to be fair, was and is a real concern. But, it is possible that the courts over-corrected and went beyond mere judicial 

modesty, and now, slowly but surely, the pendulum seems to be 

swinging back the other way. 

The most visible sign of this is the Supreme Court’s growing uneasiness with so-called Seminole Rock or Auer defense, which applies to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations. I tend to 

agree with Professor John Manning’s view. The deference of this 

sort raises serious separation of powers concerns because it allows 

a single body to both make and execute the law. 

One would expect this to encourage vague regulations so that 

agencies maintain maximum interpretative flexibility, and there is 

some evidence that this has actually been the result in certain instances. Other consequences include the elimination of any independent check on policymaking, reduced notice of the law to the 

public, fewer restraints on agencies when enforcing the law, greater variation in application of the law, and reduced accountability, 

as agencies hide major policies in open-ended language or discover 

them there. 

These criticisms have found a receptive audience on the Supreme 

Court, as Professor Levin has described. To date, four Justices have 

written separately to express their willingness to reconsider Seminole Rock. Of course, it takes five to tango on the Court. There is 

no way to tell at this point whether the next case will topple Seminole Rock. 

Yet, the Supreme Court does not have the final word on these 

things. Congress does. And, Congress could, by statute, direct the 

courts to defer to agency interpretations only to the extent of their 

power to persuade, that is, the old Skidmore standard. As discussed in my written testimony, rejecting Seminole Rock would 

have the benefits of fortifying the constitutional separation of powers, improving notice of the law and ultimately advancing individual liberty. It is a reform at least worthy of serious consideration. 

Another issue worthy of consideration, and one that cannot be 

rectified by the courts, is the Administrative Procedures Act’s 

(APA) exemption of interpretative rules from ordinary rulemaking 

procedures, including notice and comment. The great breadth of 

this exception made good sense in the 1940s. If this Congress was 

trying to rein in agency excesses and regularize their conduct, it 

recognized the value in providing informal guidance. 

But, as Justice Scalia explained in his recent separate opinion in 

Perez, by supplementing the APA with judge-made doctrines of deference, the court has revolutionized the import of interpretative 

rules’ exemption from notice and comment rulemaking. Agencies 

may now use these rules not just to advise the public, but also to 

bind them. 

The solution, I think, is to align the scope of the exception with 

its purpose by limiting judicial defense to rules promulgated 

through notice and comment. Again, such interpretations could still 

receive deference according to their power to persuade, but there 

is no reason to go beyond that. 

Finally, let me address Chevron deference, which counsels a 

court to defer in certain circumstances to an agency’s reasonable 
7 

interpretation of statutes it administers. First, let me say that the 

mood of deference that accompanies Chevron has lately worked a 

sea change among executive agencies. The search for meaning in 

Congress’s commands has been replaced with a hunt for ambiguities that might allow the agency to escape its statutory confines. 

In my practice, I see this quite regularly of late with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA’s) major rules, which seek out, 

or sometimes invent, ambiguity as an escape hatch from seemingly 

clear statutory language. And, it is not just the EPA. The Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and 

others have all adopted this non-interpretative interpretative approach to bring to fruition regulatory policies that just a few years 

ago were considered dead because they could not pass Congress. 

How quaint that now seems. 

Chevron’s impact on judging, however, is more difficult to pin 

down. That said, the Chevron formula does have a certain logical 

appeal. If actual gaps in statutes are to be filled up between the 

courts and the agencies, I know which I would choose to do it. But, 

the problem is that there are not gaps every single time a court 

chooses to defer. So, what to do about it. 

Well, I agree with Justice Scalia, Chevron’s chief advocate and 

not one known for excessive deference, that the fox in the hen 

house syndrome is to be avoided not by abandoning the idea of deference, but by taking seriously and applying rigorously in all cases 

statutory limits on agencies’ authority. But, how? 

One way to do that is to pack the Federal bench with more 

Scalias. Another is to avoid capacious authorizations of agency 

power and trim back those that rely more on unstated understandings than text. 

But, what about changing Chevron? Well, nothing I have seen 

suggests that it would do much good. That does not mean, however, 

that it is not a fit topic for discussion and debate. It surely is. At 

the very least, it would be a worthwhile task to identify and consider reforming those statutes that are the most subject to abuse. 

More hearings like this one will be necessary for Congress to begin 

to reclaim what it has lost. 

Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to offer these 

remarks and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you for your input. 

We are going to have one more formalized round of questions, 

and in the second round, I will be more open and we will have a 

more open dialogue as we walk through this together. I appreciate 

very much this ongoing conversation. 

There is a real challenge that we have to face on this, and that 

is the difference in separation of powers and that where we are 

going. It is not where we are and where we have been, but it is 

also where we are going. 

You gentlemen are extremely aware of where we have been on 

this. The question is, what is the next step? How far does this go? 

With new rules dealing with interpretative rules, the agencies continue to make decisions. Mr. Grossman, as you had mentioned, the 

search for ambiguity in statute to try to pass things in policy 

through agency action that could not have passed through Con-
8 

gress, it seems to be an ongoing push to happen with agencies, and 

now the challenge is, does this continue to go this way? 

My opening question to you is do you see that pattern where the 

agencies are seeing more of the gaps than they are seeing what to 

actually do with an existing statute? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, once the genie is out of the bottle, 

I think it is very difficult to put it back in, and what we have seen 

of late is agencies, to varying extents, abandoning the traditional 

understandings that served as a restraint on agency power. 

It was always the view that big policy decisions, and there is 

some disagreement over what necessarily constitutes big, but the 

big decisions were channeled through Congress, and there were political reasons for that, but there were also reasons of simple restraint and understanding. Those informal understandings were 

not necessarily things that were expressed in clear statutory text. 

They are there by implications and they reflect the inherent authority of agencies, in other words, the boundaries of their actual 

power that Congress has authorized them to exercise. 

When those limitations, those traditional understandings, fall 

away and the courts are sometimes wary of enforcing them, although sometimes they do, the agencies, in many instances, have 

taken that as a carte blanche to undertake questions that previously would have been channeled through Congress. 

So, yes, I think that we are going to see a lot more of this, and 

I fear that it is something that is going to occur not just in Democratic administrations, but also in Republican administrations. I do 

not see how you go back. 

Senator LANKFORD. I do not know how to fix the predictability 

of law and of regulations to do business and to do investment. That 

is the concern, is if it is a Democrat executive and all the regulations suddenly turn this way, and then a Republican executive and 

everything shifts back the other way, there is no stability and predictability. You can no longer go to Congress and try to get some 

insight of where we are going in policy. It moves by the whims of 

the executive, and that, to me, is a real concern for planning and 

for business and for our free market system. The predictability and 

the boundaries of that is very significant. 

Let me just bring up a ‘‘for instance.’’ It is fairly unlikely, I would 

say, in 1972, that Congress contemplated the Waters of the U.S. 

regulation that is now coming down from EPA and from the Corps 

of Engineers. The administrative agencies have twice brought out 

a Waters of the U.S. rule, twice been knocked down by the courts. 

It is coming out in a new version again. It is difficult to read the 

Clean Water Act and to find this new version of navigable waters 

included into it, but yet there it is, suddenly within an agency promulgation. 

Where does this continue to go in the days ahead? Mr. Levin, do 

you want to comment on that? 

Mr. LEVIN. Yes. I have a somewhat different perception of—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Sure. 

Mr. LEVIN [continuing]. Of the big picture from Mr. Grossman’s, 

I think. I do not know when this earlier era was in which agencies 

never tested the limits of their authority. I think they always have 

done it and it is what an executive agency naturally would do, and 
9 

it is, therefore, the role of the courts to bring some appropriate 

standard of review to bear in order to provide some check on what 

they do. 

Now, Chevron has emerged as one of those accepted checks in 

our system, and Auer has served for years as its regulatory counterpart. In the days when Chevron first came out, it was promoted 

primarily by Republican-appointed judges. Mr. Grossman points 

this out in his testimony. It was hailed as the right way to go. 

These days, you are getting more criticism of agencies and the assumption that Chevron is not up to the job, but I really suspect 

that if a Republican wins the Presidency and starts promoting deregulatory measures, that you are going to see a newfound appreciation for the virtues of deference. A lot has to depend—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Which is, by the way, my concern, is that we 

constantly have this back and forth, as I just mentioned. You cannot do long-term investment on a project if you really do not know 

what the regulations are, or if they are based on just the whims 

of the executive. 

Originally, we are basing everything on statute, and now it becomes who is the smartest person, and the courts seem to have this 

new approach—and you can correct me if I am wrong here, but the 

approach is you know more about this subject than I do. I am going 

to defer to you because you have greater knowledge and insight on 

the subject. But, that also assumes that they have taken into account all the rest of it. 

Notice and comment is not just about acquiring quantity and 

saying you have done your due diligence because you have a thousand different letters that you have responded to and you know 

more about this subject than I do. There seems to be more to it 

than that in the notice and comment and the interaction between, 

does this line up with the statute? Is this what is the least expensive, best available, I mean, all the different dynamics that we 

have with administrative law that you know extremely well. That 

is the ongoing challenge, is where does this go? 

Mr. LEVIN. Right. So, I think we have the rulemaking part and 

we have the judicial review part. The rulemaking process does have 

built-in steps in it, as you describe. The judicial review part comes 

in as a check based on some standard of review. The Chevron test 

or Auer test is generally seen among administrative lawyers as the 

relatively predictable standard of review. 

If you substituted Skidmore review for it, then you have what 

Justice Scalia calls the totality of the circumstances approach, in 

which you cannot predict very well at all how a court would respond to a given administrative ruling. And if you took away all 

deference and just left decisions up to the unfettered decision of 

judges, I think predictability would be impaired even more. So, we 

have some degree of stability in our system right now that tends 

toward what you are driving at. 

Senator LANKFORD. I am going to defer to the Ranking Member, 

but I wanted to say, when we come back around, I want to get a 

chance to talk about agencies and the appeal process, because we 

also have an issue with agencies now receiving—and it has been 

for a while, but if someone wants to appeal a rulemaking, they appeal that rulemaking to a person literally sitting in the cubicle next 
10 

door to the person who made the previous rule and made the previous decision, and trying to get an outside opinion is becoming 

more and more difficult. And, so, I want us to be able to talk about 

that some as well as multiple areas. 

But, I want to recognize Ranking Member Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Very complicated history and a very long history and how you 

look at this, unfortunately, frequently, as through maybe too political of a lens than what it should be as we are kind of looking at 

predictability. And, one of the concerns that I have is that we are 

focused on, in this discussion, on judicial review. Why is judicial review necessary if, in fact, the agency makes a mistake? 

Congress plays a role in correcting agency mistakes, it seems to 

me, and that is one thing that if you are on the court and you are 

trying to figure out what congressional intent was and whether, in 

fact, congressional intent was followed through these kind of interpretative rules or rulemaking process, you must be extraordinarily 

frustrated, thinking, why can Congress not cleanup their own 

mess? Why do we have to do it? And, I think that is one of the frustrations that I have in all of this. I think, many times, the issues 

that are deferred to the agency are issues that are too controversial 

or too difficult for Congress to decide themselves. 

And, I am going to build on the Chairman’s example, Waters of 

the United States. We recently had a hearing in the Agriculture 

Committee to talk about Waters of the United States and I asked 

a simple question. After a lot of critique about that rule and about 

the rulemaking process, I asked a simple question, which was, 

what are Waters of the United States? Not one person could offer 

an answer. It is incredibly complicated. 

And, I am not pleased with the process that was used in the controversy around that rule, but I am sympathetic that, frequently, 

this body spends way too much time kicking the can down the road 

by taking something that is very controversial and putting it in the 

lap of the agency as opposed to doing our due diligence and our responsibility. 

But, I want to talk a little bit about interpretative rules, because 

it has become the buzzword for agency overreach. And, having been 

involved in an earlier life in the tax world, I guess I would ask you, 

Mr. Grossman, do you think IRS letter rulings should be subject 

to rulemaking standards? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I think the answer is yes, to the extent—that 

they are going to be given any greater degree of deference than 

Skidmore deference. That said, I think an IRS letter ruling, given 

the way that the tax code is structured, is something that in most 

instances—not all instances, but most instances—is something that 

is going to hold up. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Are you concerned at all—with that answer, 

are you concerned at all that it will, in fact, even further delay certainty to a businessman who simply says, I want to know if I do 

this what the long-term tax treatment will be, and I understand 

that you might be saying things that could be more broadly applied 

and representing your interpretive rule, but I need this answer 

today, not 3 years from now. 
11 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes. Senator, I certainly do take into account 

that concern, and it is a real and a legitimate one. I think I would 

have two responses to that. 

One is to identify with your earlier remarks that a lot of these 

areas where there is uncertainty in the law is due to either complexity wrought by Congress or to vagueness or ambiguity wrought 

by Congress. The tax code, I think, is a capital example of that in 

terms of its complexity. 

Second, Congress can, in some instances, affect the way, legitimately, that judicial review and deference is operational. If Congress decides that certain types of tax rulings are entitled to a 

greater degree of deference to promote certainty, that is fine. That 

is something that Congress has the authority to do. That does not 

necessarily mean that it needs to be the case across the board. I 

think that is a policy issue for Congress to decide. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think one of the concerns that I have about 

all this is where we have burdensome and unnecessary regulation, 

we also have delay in providing regulatory certainty, and that 

delay could be further extended if we, in fact, look at every instance of interpretation of a statute as being subject to the rulemaking process. Would you not agree that we could have the potential of actually delaying critical certainty if we expand the way you 

are suggesting we expand the definition of what constitutes a rule 

subject to rulemaking? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. No, actually, I would not agree with that, and 

the reason is because the rules that—litigation, when a court applies a particular standard of deference or standard of review, really applies to relatively very few cases and it sets the rules and the 

framework that an agency works under going forward and that 

governs people going forward. And, so, when there are understandings of the way that statutes work and the way that courts 

are going to resolve them, it is actually very few interpretations 

and very few instances that are involved in legal controversies—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes—— 

Mr. GROSSMAN. It is the tip of the iceberg. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Mr. Levin, what would be your response to 

my question? 

Mr. LEVIN. I think I would agree with what I took to be the 

thrust of your question, which is that people need guidance, and 

they have questions in their mind. They want to know where the 

agency stands. They do not want to wait for an agency to conduct 

an entire notice and comment proceeding in order to get an answer. 

They want an answer immediately. Agencies will respond by putting out informal statements that say, here is the position we 

would take. You are not bound by it, but at least you know what 

our position is. 

If we were to say that those statements have to go through the 

notice and comment process, you would see many fewer of them 

and that would be less responsive to the public’s need for an understanding of what the agency’s position is and, oftentimes, they do 

not want to fight it, they just want an answer. 

If you were to say, well, those statements can be issued, but they 

have no weight because the courts will not defer to them, then the 
12 

recipient of the advice would say, well, this does not do anything 

for me because I have not gotten anything—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. It is kind of worthless. 

Mr. LEVIN. Right. So, if I can only trust what comes out through 

the notice and comment process, it is saying I cannot trust what 

the agency told me. If you are hostile to the agency, you would say 

that is great because they will not get deference, but if you just 

want an answer, you want to know, how can I conduct my business 

in a way that the agency will not challenge, then it is not good 

news. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, not to delay it, but controversial opinions or controversial decisions from agencies can always be reviewed by Congress. We know what they are. But, there is a reason 

why controversy exists, and frequently, this body is the most at 

fault for not providing certainty in terms of direction to agencies. 

Mr. LEVIN. I agree. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thanks, Chairman Lankford, for holding this 

hearing, and thank you, gentlemen, for giving us your wisdom here 

this morning. 

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is now about 180,000 

pages long. It is increasingly complicated. We deal with complicated issues in Congress, understandably. A lot of those go to the 

agency for decision. Congressional oversight is rare, let us be frank, 

and so the agencies have taken on more and more responsibility 

and power and, by the way, have created, as Ranking Member 

Heitkamp said, a lot of uncertainty out there. I just had a meeting 

yesterday on some of this uncertainty as it affects my State of Ohio 

and our economy. 

So, for better or worse, in my view, the most effective line of defense against executive overreach is often the courts, and the question is, what should the courts’ rule be, and you all have differed 

this morning on what you see as appropriate. I feel strongly that 

Congress should do more in terms of writing legislation that is 

clear. That would be good. Often, by the way, even when we try 

to do that, as in the case of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration tends to come up with its own, not just interpretation, but 

changes in statute by executive action. But, that is what this debate is all about. 

There are regulatory guidelines already in place and I think the 

public, rightly, expects agencies to make decisions based on an informed and objective manner. Executive Order (EO) 12866 is the 

famous one. It requires agencies adopt a regulation only upon reasonable determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs, and that agencies design regulations in the most 

cost effective manner to achieve the regulatory outcome, and that 

they tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society. 

And, having been Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) at a time when the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) struggled with some of these issues, this is 

incredibly important that we have some guidelines for the agencies. 

I will say that there is a lot of research out there, including some 

research that you all have done, indicating that some of this regulatory analysis is completed, some of it is not. Often, the agencies 
13 

just fail to use the robust economic analysis, particularly independent agencies, of course, who are not subject to it because they 

are not within the ambit of the executive. 

So, that is what we are focused on here, or at least I am, and 

the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), as you know, is bipartisan. It is something we worked on the last few years that attempts to put some more balance in here and to provide more judicial review in an effective way to be sure that 12866 and other 

standards are actually met. The idea of the Regulatory Accountability Act is to, frankly, get the courts more involved in ensuring 

that these standards are met. 

And I know in your comments, Professor Levin, you said that the 

proposals that, quote, ‘‘would empower the courts to invalidate a 

rule based on the basis that an agency did not sufficiently comply 

with the procedural requirements,’’ such as those I just mentioned, 

you have concerns about that. Your reason seems to be, I think, 

that courts are generalists and they do not have the ability or the 

expertise to be able to evaluate questions like—did the agency conduct an analysis? Was the analysis adequate given the circumstances and information available? Has the agency provided a 

factual basis for its conclusions or has it simply stated a summary 

conclusion unsupported by facts? 

I guess my opinion is that we do need the courts to do that, and 

I know you also say that the courts should be able to review Regulatory Impact Analyses, which are sometimes extremely long and 

technical documents, as you know. If the courts can review those, 

I guess my question for you would be—and you say they should be 

able to review them to determine whether there is a rational basis 

for the court action. If courts have the competence to do that, I 

guess, why do you not think they can do the kind of analysis on 

the technical side that would be involved with an approach that I 

support, the RAA-type approach? Will not the adversarial process, 

aided by experts, if necessary, help distill some of these issues for 

judicial review? And, I guess, the final question is, do the courts 

not already conduct similar analyses under these statutes—the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), NEPA has this. If not, how does that task differ, in your 

opinion? 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you for that question, Senator Portman. As I 

mentioned in my statement, I have publicly supported a bill that 

you have offered to extend the OIRA process to the—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Independent agencies. 

Mr. LEVIN [continuing]. Independent agencies. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. Thank you for that. 

Mr. LEVIN. At the same time, I have also participated in comments, along with the American Bar Association (ABA) Administrative Law Section, on various versions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. Some points we made there—and this was primarily directed at the House bill, but had some overlaps with your bill from 

last session, S. 1029—a concern is that if you add new procedural 

requirements across the board on agency rulemaking, you will be 

adding unwarranted complexity to the administrative process because of all the additional mandates that agencies would need to 

perform. 
14 

What we have today is a process in which the court can look at 

the analysis documents that were generated through the executive 

oversight process; and also, those documents go into the record and 

the stakeholders from all sides can critique them, can add their 

own evaluation. Those comments are also part of the rulemaking 

record, and so the court has quite a bit of input from multiple directions on the issues raised as to the regulatory analysis process. 

So, I do not think there is any lack of input to the courts as to 

things they could look at, but if you add on top of all that additional mandates to the agencies to conduct the following studies, 

make the following findings, and you do it in the across-the-board 

way that much of the RAA did, I think that adds unwarranted 

complexity to the process. 

Senator PORTMAN. I guess what I would ask you is, do you think 

that under statutes where the court does have that ability to actually enforce its opinion as to the Regulatory Impact Analysis, do 

you think that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), for instance, or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), or Safe Drinking Water Act, do you think that in those 

areas where the courts already have the ability to review the regulatory costs and so on, do you think those are not working? Do you 

think the court does not have the ability to carry that out? And, 

if you do not believe that, then why would it not apply to other regulations? 

Mr. LEVIN. What I am saying—excuse me, what the ABA Ad Law 

Section said, and I was a part of it, I am not speaking for them 

today, but I am reviewing what was said in the document—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. LEVIN [continuing]. Is that in those particular contexts, Congress itself made a judgment that there is a specific need for a certain set of criteria to be applied, certain evidentiary standards to 

be used, and the like. And, I do not actually mean to argue that 

in those situations where Congress found that need, that it is a bad 

piece of legislation, and it is a fact that the courts have enforced 

it. I have, on the other hand, thought that to apply this across the 

board to the entire regulatory apparatus is an unwarranted extension, because now you would be adding more layers of analysis 

without regard to a specific finding that that agency has problems 

that justify that treatment. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for the deference, and again, I thank you both for 

your testimony and thanks for working with us on this. We want 

to get this right, and the notion is to have cost-benefit analysis, but 

also have it be enforceable through some kind of judicial review, 

and I think it is urgent that we find that. Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us today. I do appreciate your testimony. 

You may be aware of the case in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on EPA’s clean power plant that Attorneys General (AG) many States are challenging, and I had recently 

read an article that mentioned a letter sent by the State of West 

Virginia to the D.C. Circuit and they were concerned about comments from the EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, and the com-
15 

ments that she made basically were insinuating that the administration has thought for quite some time that they do have the authority to force States to implement these energy plans and that 

it is only a matter of time before the EPA’s proposed rule becomes 

final. So, she seems to believe that she can go ahead and force 

States to do this, even before the proposed rule is final. 

And, then, this is really concerning to a number of folks who 

have written, they have entered their comments, they have submitted those public comments, and they are hopeful that the agency is actually reviewing those comments and will take them into 

consideration before the final revised rule. And, in this case, a 

number of States contend that the EPA altogether lacks the authority to issue the regulation at issue. 

So, I would just like to get your perspective on this issue. I know 

Senator Lankford had already addressed the fact that—and I believe that agencies are really exploiting the alleged ambiguity and 

relevant laws, really, to get to their point. But, particularly in instances where the head of an agency forecasts the content of a final 

rule, do you think it is appropriate for courts to wait on a final 

rule, then, before addressing the merits of the rule if the agency 

is already stating they are going to implement it? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Senator, first of all, the example that you put 

forward, EPA’s clean power plant, is truly an exceptional example 

and I think it exemplifies the problem with the mood of deference 

and how that has affected agency operations. 

The court case you are talking about, Murray Energy, before the 

D.C. Circuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency has adopted, or has put forward 

four or five separate rationales as to why it is they believe that the 

statute is ambiguous, some of which defy commonly understood notions of grammar and meaning. And, the interpretive mission that 

the agency has embarked on there, in other words, to search out 

ambiguity in any possible way they can find it, under a rock, behind a tree, is something that really ought to be of concern. 

Now, what makes this an extraordinary case, and I think possibly a very rare exception from the ordinary rule of finality, is the 

fact that the agency is actually acting right now. Although EPA 

has only put forward a proposal, the agency’s Administrator, has 

said that they do plan to go forward with the final rule, but not 

only that, the agency has outlined deadlines for States and for regulated parties that force them to begin taking major and expensive 

action at this time before a final rule is released. This is a very unusual circumstance. 

And, when I say it requires them to, I want to put emphasis on 

the word ‘‘requires.’’ It is not possible to comply with the rule as 

EPA has proposed it and as EPA has indicated it intends to finalize 

it, without taking substantial action concerning billions of dollars’ 

worth of investment right now at this time. 

So, in these very unique and very strange circumstances, I think 

there is a case for judicial review prior to finalization of a rule. In 

general, that would be a far-fetched proposition, but this may be 

the one instance that proves the rule. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. 

Yes. 
16 

Mr. LEVIN. Your comment about the letter from the Attorneys 

General made me think of a case I teach every year in Administrative Law called the Association of National Advertisers v. FTC, decided by the D.C. Circuit back in 1979, which essentially said that 

there is virtually no such thing in the rulemaking context as prejudgment of the kind that we would talk about in the context of 

adjudication. Agency heads always have opinions. They are expected to have opinions. They could not function without a policy 

direction about where they want to go. It would be an abuse of discretion to launch a rulemaking proceeding if you did not have some 

context of where you wanted to go. 

So, the courts simply will not say the agency head expressed a 

strong opinion, therefore, it is an impropriety. Rather, they say, go 

ahead, take the position that you are going to take, but remember 

there will ultimately be judicial review of whether it stands up on 

the merits. 

So, I do not think it was improper for the Administrator to make 

the comments. There is a separate question, whether the plan itself 

is legal, which will ultimately be sorted out and judicial remedy 

will be available. 

Mr. Grossman is right that it is not commonplace to bring a case 

before the courts while it is simply a proposal, and I guess the case 

remains to be decided as to whether it is soon enough. All I know 

is the press reports in which judges appointed by Republicans were 

incredulous that a case could be filed like this while it was just a 

proposed rule. But, maybe they will change their mind during the 

deliberative process and agree with Mr. Grossman. The signals did 

not sound that way. 

Senator ERNST. Well, it is an extreme case, I understand, but it 

really goes back to something that I have hit on many times in this 

Committee, the fact that we have entities out there, we have a public that is out there that is responding to public comment. They are 

entering what they believe is to be the proper course of action, of 

course, anything that might be detrimental to their businesses, to 

their individual lives, and we have many agencies that are not, I 

believe, taking those into consideration as they move forward, and 

this is exactly one of those examples. 

Mr. LEVIN. Right. So, in the Mortgage Bankers case decided last 

month, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what had been common law 

and administrative law for many years, which is that an agency in 

a rulemaking process has a duty to respond to comments from the 

public. So, that will be part of the ultimate decision of whether 

they are acting lawfully. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time 

today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Peters. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Chairman Lankford and Ranking 

Member Heitkamp, for this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses. We certainly appreciate your testimony here today. 

The one issue that I want to raise, and something that I am particularly concerned about, is the impact of judicial vacancies on our 

capacity for the judicial reviews being discussed today. There are 

currently 54 vacancies in the Federal courts and only 14 have 
17 

nominees pending at this time. There are another 26 future vacancies that we know are coming within a year and only three of those 

have nominees pending. If the courts are asked to increasingly review agency issued regulations, this will obviously quite substantially increase the workload of an already overloaded Federal 

bench. 

Until 2 weeks ago, this Senate had not confirmed a Federal 

judge. There are currently 17 judicial nominations that the Senate 

needs to act on, and even more vacancies without nominees. I think 

an important first step is for the Senate to address these vacancies 

on these pending nominations, but even if all these vacancies were 

filled, the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States has 

recommended that Congress create 82 new Federal judgeships to 

properly address the current caseload. 

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that pending cases are up 20 percent since 2004, with over 330,000 cases 

pending before Federal courts. Of those, over 30,000 have been 

pending for 3 or more years. 

So, given this backdrop, Mr. Levin, do the courts have the resources to provide adequate review of all cost-benefit analyses that 

are now being produced by agencies, and what is this going to do 

to this already pretty extensive backlog? 

Mr. LEVIN. I entirely agree that there is a problem of undue vacancies on the courts. I would hope that both the nomination process and confirmation process could be expedited to allow that to 

happen. 

There is a mismatch many times between what the laws require 

judges to do and the resources made available for them to do it. 

I think that is a generic problem. Adding to the obligation to work 

through cost-benefit analyses to a greater extent than they do now 

would aggravate it, but it would aggravate it in the same way as 

many other things could aggravate it. 

So, my critique is not so much that they would not have time, 

but that it is not the task for which they are best suited. And, 

given all the pressures on the courts these days to make time for 

the cases they do have, you want to be very cautious about passing 

any legislation that would materially increase it. 

Senator PETERS. Well, it is clear, given this law, putting in a 

number of cost-benefit analysis requirements for the courts would 

be a heavy burden for them when already we are looking at delays 

of 3 or more years for 30,000 cases and 330,000 cases pending. Certainly, there are other things that can add to the backlog, but this 

would add a significant burden that would continue to slow down 

the system and allow judges to deal with important areas of justice 

that they have to deal with each and every day—— 

Mr. LEVIN. So, I am agreeing with that and then saying, and it 

is more than that. 

Senator PETERS. It is more than that, and let us go to that. 

Where they may have the time and the resources and the necessary expertise, as you have alluded to, it seems that many times 

that they are being asked to review some pretty highly technical 

regulations, including things that are based on significant scientific 

expertise, how can the courts deal with that? How best can they 

deal with those kinds of issues? 
18 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, it takes a lot of time to study those records, to 

write those opinions, to reach agreement on a panel. I would suggest that, to some degree, the answer is to give a reasonable 

amount of deference to the agency that has the specialized expertise in the area, so they do owe a hard look, as it is called, to see 

if the agency acted reasonably. But, I think they need to draw the 

line short of making all those decisions again on their own. 

And, so, putting some confidence in the agency and the political 

process in which the agency operates can be desirable, because I 

share Senator Heitkamp’s point that it is important to remember 

that the agency answers to Congress and they answer to the public 

so that is a source of constraint that suggests that a court should 

not try to do everything in the review process. They should look to 

see if it is reasonable, but they should not try to decide themselves 

all the scientific questions. 

Senator PETERS. So, in addition to the delays that occur because 

of the already overloaded courts and also the need to get some very 

sophisticated information in order to make well-reasoned decisions, 

I am also concerned that because of all of that, which would slow 

down the process, that would likely mean significant delays in the 

rulemaking process because of these increased procedural requirements that some folks are talking about. 

So, would mandating additional judicial review have a major 

chilling effect on the rulemaking process, do you believe? 

Mr. LEVIN. I think so, but in the sense that if you give the agencies more tasks to do and no more resources to do them, that will 

strain their resources. So, your point about adequate funding for 

the courts should be paired with adequate funding for the agencies 

because their budgets have been cut. The discretionary spending 

has been reduced at the same time that Congress continues to add 

more expectations for them. And, so, there is a mismatch there, as 

well. 

Senator PETERS. And, as that has slowed down and as rulemaking has a chilling effect, although companies and industries are 

going to be expecting some rulemaking, as you know, uncertainty 

has an incredibly detrimental impact on economic activity on businesses. So, now you have the uncertainty as to what is going to 

happen with rules, and those are going to take much longer with 

some of these proposals. I suppose you could also see there could 

be an increase in litigation. Would you expect that this might increase litigation, if we have more proposals and more procedural 

requirements for rulemaking? 

Mr. LEVIN. If you add new requirements and make them judicially reviewable, that is more or less by definition an invitation to 

more litigation to test whether the agency measured up under 

those standards. 

Senator PETERS. So, in a sense, we have an overburdened court 

without the resources to deal with the issue that is going to delay 

rulemaking, which will cause uncertainty, which will have a negative impact on the economy as well as increasing litigation in the 

courts. If I can summarize what you are saying. 

Mr. LEVIN. Yes. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Thank you. 
19 

Senator LANKFORD. For the Committee and those of you all here 

at the dais and for you, the second round, it is the tradition of this 

Committee—what I mean by tradition is we have done it once, 

so—— [Laughter.] 

So now we are just going to keep doing it. [Laughter.] 

The second round of questioning is open, and so every microphone is open and we are open to have open colloquy here and with 

you, and so it is a less formal round of questioning on that. 

The challenge that I see on this is how to continue to give Congress its legislative powers that are required by the Constitution, 

which I think all of us want to see the clear separation of powers 

in Congress to the part that says all legislative powers shall reside 

in Congress actually has meaning, as well, and to continue to be 

able to practice that. 

So, my question is, where there is ambiguity in the law now, deference is given to the Executive Branch rather than deference to 

the Legislative Branch, meaning if it is unclear, if there is ambiguity, the courts would look at it and say, I am going to trust the 

people in the agencies because Congress did not complete this, 

rather than saying, this has to be on hold until Congress brings 

clarity. So, the assumption is Congress will not clarify, so the agencies must clarify, rather than this is unclear in the statute, Congress needs to go back and bring clarity. Until then, it is on hold, 

or no, you cannot move this. Why is the deference given to an agency from the Judicial Branch rather than the deference given to the 

Legislative Branch? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. If I could, it is a very good question. The idea, 

I think, is, to begin with, there is this background assumption underlying the deference canons that the Congress has intended to 

delegate to the agencies interpretative authority to fill up the details of statutes where Congress has not specified particular details. That assumption may or may not prove correct with respect 

to different statutes, but that really is the core idea underlying 

both Chevron as well as Auer deference, that is what Congress’s intent is. 

Second, in terms of why the Legislative Branch itself is not deferred to, I think the way to look at that is, obviously, the Legislative Branch itself cannot participate in an official basis in litigation 

and express its views other than by enacting laws. And, certainly, 

enacting laws is, by far, the best way to clarify and resolve ambiguities in statutes. 

But, where that does not happen and where it is not possible and 

where you have ambiguities or vagueness, the question is, to what 

extent are those questions of statutory interpretation going to be 

decided by courts who may be looking at, trying to wring from a 

particular statutory scheme every ounce of meaning they possibly 

can from it. In other words, when you have something that appears 

to be an ambiguity, if you apply all the traditional tools of statutory interpretation, the ambiguity might be substantially narrowed 

so that an agency has at its disposal several possible choices, but 

perhaps not a wide range of choices. 

And, I think that is really where the disagreement is in this particular debate. There are always going to be ambiguities, and when 

there are genuine policy decisions to be made, it probably makes 
20 

sense, in general, for those to be made by the agencies. But, the 

real question is the scope of their authority to do so. 

Senator ERNST. Can I jump into that, please? 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes. 

Senator ERNST. Something that I did not have the time to address, and I think it fits well here as we talk about constitutional 

authority, whether it is the Judicial Branch, Executive Branch, 

Legislative Branch, but if both of you could just take a moment and 

visit a little bit about sue and settle, when the agencies maybe decide not to defend themselves, or someone sues and they decide to 

settle out of court. It is done behind closed doors. It really takes 

away the transparency, I think. Decisions are made behind closed 

doors but do not involve a lot of the different members that we 

have spoken about. So, rules and regulations are made behind 

closed doors and the public is not aware of what is going on behind 

those closed doors. 

Mr. LEVIN. I wanted to respond to Senator Lankford, and maybe 

I can also respond to you, Senator Ernst. On Senator Lankford’s 

point, I really do not think that there is a lack of deference to the 

Legislative Branch because the legislature can intervene and make 

a decision through legislation when it chooses. I think the problem 

is that it too infrequently uses that authority, I think is the point 

Senator Heitkamp made earlier—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Let me just jump in there. The standard to 

actually interrupt a rule is as high or higher than it is to making 

a law in that sense. So, if you have, let us say, a divided Congress 

or Congress and the White House, and the White House through 

their agencies have put in a policy, have found a vagueness in a 

rule, have put out a rule, Congress wants to respond to that. They 

now have to get 67 votes in the Senate to be able to overthrow 

that, when at the beginning they would only have to get 60 for cloture or 51 for passage. So, now, you have this very high standard 

because you assume the White House is going to veto any kind of 

change in their policy that they put in place. If you have a politically divided House and Senate, then the agencies can basically 

move at whatever will they want, knowing that one area is not 

going to check them. 

So, the unusual standard here, as I understand the legislature 

has a responsibility in that and has the ability to be able to do 

that, but it is the capacity to be able to get that done where there 

is a vagueness and the agencies have more leeway. Does that make 

sense? 

Mr. LEVIN. It does, but I think what you are saying is it is too 

bad that we have bicameralism and—— 

Senator LANKFORD. No, sir, I am not saying that. [Laughter.] 

Most definitely not saying that. 

Mr. LEVIN. I misunderstood. 

Senator LANKFORD. What I am saying is it is too bad that the 

executive now makes a rule, enforces the rule, and interprets the 

rule. What I am saying is, it is too bad that we are now creating 

a system where only one branch runs everything and the judicial 

branch gives deference to them and the legislative, when they have 

differences in political opinions, which the American people do, 
21 

does not get to speak to that. That is what I am saying is the problem. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, if I can just jump in here, but taken 

that is kind of the problem, that politically, and let us at least acknowledge that the President is politically accountable for decisions 

that he makes, maybe not in his second term, but—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. He is politically accountable and 

has an obligation to listen to what people believe and we all go 

there. But, the solution of turfing this or making the court the ultimate arbitrator of these decisions has its own limitations. 

And, I think it is interesting that the two cases we are talking 

about today, direct regulations that we have referenced, which is 

Waters of the United States and clean coal, the EPA CO2 regulation, both of those situations are presented because of Supreme 

Court decisions. So, you already had a review process that may not 

necessarily have dealt with deference, especially on CO2, because 

the question was EPA had decided not to regulate CO2 and the 

court reversed that decision and said, yes, you have jurisdiction to 

regulate CO2, and that began this process that we are in. 

When you look at the opinions in Waters of the United States 

you have four deciding that EPA is wrong, you have four deciding 

EPA is right, and you have a decider in the middle who said, well, 

I am going to side with the four that said EPA is wrong, but I 

think you ought to maybe think about doing it this way. And, so, 

there is huge uncertainty that is created, and ironically in those 

two cases, created because of Supreme Court decisions. 

And, so, I understand and appreciate the concern. I am as vehement about Waters of the United States and CO2 regulation as 

anyone on this panel. But, I think that we are asking to put a really heavy burden on the courts when, as Senator Peters was talking, 

courts are ill equipped at this point, just in terms of resources, to 

play that role, and is that—what role does the court have in all of 

this? 

And, we are really talking about a standard, because, should it 

be Chevron deference or Auer deference or whatever it is, at the 

end of the day, what capacity does the court have, I think is the 

question, either in terms of resources or ability, especially given 

the two examples we are having here where the Court did not provide additional clarity, in fact, may have made it even more difficult to find clarity. 

Senator ERNST. And, again, I would like to jump back in. And 

what happens when it is not the court, but behind closed doors 

when settlements are made—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 

Senator ERNST [continuing]. Where does that fit into this? 

Senator HEITKAMP. And that is a problem, Senator, regardless of 

who is—it could be corporate America could be behind the closed 

door—— 

Senator ERNST. Exactly. 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. It could be the environmentalist 

behind the closed door. I am always concerned about friendly lawsuits that make a policy decision and say, now we are enforcing a 

consent decree and not interpreting a statute. And, I guess, Mr. 
22 

Levin, it would be interesting to hear your perspective on the 

friendly lawsuit possibility. 

Mr. LEVIN. The question has been kicking around for a long time, 

and one of the problems is a lack of clear factual information about 

the extent of any abuse, and it is often the subject of heated 

charges in both directions. But, I would say that Congress should 

be careful in this area and develop clear factual basis for any action it might take. 

Senator HEITKAMP. But, do you share our concern that this, in 

fact, could happen and maybe has happened in the past? 

Mr. LEVIN. It could. But, I think the number of accusations exceeds the number of ones that can be substantiated. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Verified. 

Mr. LEVIN. So, I do not want to dismiss it—— 

Senator LANKFORD. But, are affected parties brought to the 

table? So, if a consent decree is made within a group and then suddenly that new regulation was imposed, was appropriate comment 

given to the affected parties or do they suddenly have the imposition of a new regulation? 

Mr. LEVIN. Oh, I think that is a fair question to ask and parties 

should have the opportunity—— 

Senator LANKFORD. That is the prime concern. It is not just the 

transparency. It is that affected parties are not given the opportunity for comment. 

Mr. LEVIN. In concept, I do agree. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Correct. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Senator, if I may, I actually testified on this particular issue before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the last 

Congress, and my testimony recounts in substantial detail a number of instances of abuse of the settlement process with regulatory 

agencies. I agree that it does not happen all the time, but there are 

instances where it has happened. 

In response to that testimony as well as other policy interests, 

there was introduced, I think it is called the Sunshine and Settlements Act, which does not alter any substantive rulemaking standards or anything of that sort but simply provides a procedure so 

that parties who are interested can become aware of these circumstances and can participate in ways such that their views are 

taken into consideration. 

Senator LANKFORD. Going back to consent decrees and Senator 

Ernst, is it inappropriate to ask any agency not to be able to make 

a consent decree if you are changing a discretionary authority to 

a mandatory authority? Is there a problem with that, to just 

limit—you cannot make a consent decree that changes substantively something that was discretionary to mandatory? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, I think there are two ways to look at it. 

On the one hand, when an agency has the discretionary duty, it 

could just say, fine, we are going to go ahead and carry out that 

particular duty, whether it is to regulate a particular pollutant or 

undertake some other regulatory action. 

The one issue that really arises in terms of transferring these 

things from discretionary duties to mandatory duties is the power 

to basically bind future administrations—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 
23 

Mr. GROSSMAN [continuing]. In other words, to remove their policy discretion. This is something that we saw quite a bit of during 

the transition from the Carter Administration to the Reagan Administration, where the Carter Administration in its final days had 

agreed to regulate a laundry list of particular substances and the 

Reagan Administration spent pretty much their entire first term 

trying to get out from under that and ultimately was unable to do 

that in a very contentious series of cases in the D.C. Circuit. 

And, that led at the time Attorney General Ed Meese to put forward a Meese memorandum that actually limited agencies’ authority to bind their successors. He realized that this would reduce the 

power of the Reagan Administration to bind whatever administration came thereafter, but his view was that it was the right thing 

to do. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So, short answer. Do you agree that 

changing a discretionary to a mandatory is a good limitation? I 

know that was part of the Meese memo, as well. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Mm-hmm. 

Senator LANKFORD. Is that an appropriate limitation on a consent decree, to say, yes, we can do consent decrees, but they are 

not unlimited in their ability. You cannot change the discretionary 

to a mandatory and control, basically, the actions of the next administration based on a consent decree that did not have outside 

input from affected parties? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I think, in general, that is correct. Look, the 

question is a very nuanced question—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Sure. 

Mr. GROSSMAN [continuing]. Because of the scope of agencies’ authority to carry out certain actions. But, I certainly agree with you 

that the power to bind a subsequent administration is—— 

Senator LANKFORD. What about changing line items of spending, 

that you could do a consent decree to change line items of spending? Obviously, that is congressional intent just got altered. Should 

a consent decree allow an agency to alter spending line items? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. No, of course not. I think the distinction, and the 

only reason I am hesitant, is because many duties that agencies 

take as being discretionary are things that, frankly, in statutes are 

specified as non-discretionary. Congress may say ‘‘shall’’ and the 

agencies decide, well, we have too much on our plates, and so we 

are going to take the ‘‘shall’’ and read it as a ‘‘may.’’ And, so, in 

those circumstances when an agency acknowledges that they, in 

fact, do have a non-discretionary duty, it is difficult to say whether 

their decision to recognize what is in the statutory text is necessarily a mistake. So, it varies from case to case. 

That said, there are plenty of cases where that is not actually 

what has happened, and so for those cases, I think the thrust of 

your questioning is exactly right. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Senator HEITKAMP. When you look at this, I think we all know 

that things are controversial. I mean, we could talk about the fiduciary rule now coming out of the Department of Labor (DOL). I 

mean, I could probably give you the top 10 most controversial regulations making their way through the regulatory body. 
24 

But, underneath all of that is a tremendous amount of regulation 

that goes on that is—you can argue whether it is necessary or not, 

but it is critical that we have agencies that are able to do that 

work in a timely fashion to give the certainty to the constituency 

stakeholders that they need in order to function. 

And, one of the problems that we have is we react to things like 

the Waters of the United States, we react to CO2 regulation in a 

way that then gives broad brush strokes that may, in fact, have 

stopped us from moving forward and giving predictability that we 

would otherwise have. Do you see what I am saying? We take the 

controversy and we redesign the system to deal with what is controversial and that may, in fact, put way—too much onerous burden on the everyday regulation that has no controversy, and I 

guess I would like to hear your response to that, Mr. Levin. 

Mr. LEVIN. Oh, I agree. I think that was implicit in some of what 

I was saying to Senator Portman, that one can look at particular 

areas and say there is a special need, but if you extrapolate it governmentwide, you will be affecting functions that were not really 

that controversial but that Congress has said should go on, and 

adding procedures on such a broad basis can weigh down the process in that way. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Mr. Grossman. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I agree with you. I would also add that, a lot of 

uncertainty comes in areas that can be resolved by agencies. You 

noted, for example, the Waters of the United States rule. If EPA 

and the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to, they could write a 

rule tomorrow that would win nine votes on the Supreme Court 

and it would be, relatively speaking, a pretty easy thing to do. 

What happens is that they have policy interests that are not necessarily compatible with the different views that have been expressed on the Supreme Court and that is why you have the uncertainty and the complexity in that area. I think in some cases where 

agencies are really trying to test the very limits of their statutory 

authority, and in some cases while disregarding traditionally understood limits on that authority, that is when you wind up with 

a lot of uncertainty in major areas. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Right. And, it goes to my argument, which is 

Congress needs to take responsibility for clarifying ambiguity in 

things that are as controversial, I think, as CO2, as controversial 

as Waters of the United States, maybe the fiduciary rule that is 

coming out of the Department of Labor right now. And, when we 

do not do that, that just becomes an invitation for further expansion of agency authority. When we do not act effectively, we are basically writing a blank check. 

And, so, the only entity, in my opinion, that can fix a legislative 

problem from the agency is Congress. And, by putting too much responsibility on the courts because maybe we think the political solution is too tough, we are abrogating our legislative responsibility 

not just to the agencies, but also to the judiciary. 

And, you made a great point, I think, Mr. Grossman, when you 

started out, because you talked about judicial activism, which for 

years was a buzzword, saying they have too much authority, they 

are being too interpretive. Now, we are talking about executive 
25 

agency activism and the real problem is legislative inactivism in 

helping resolve a lot of these controversies, it seems to me. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I do not disagree, really, with any of that. Congress really should be the first mover in pretty much every instance, particularly when you are dealing with major questions. 

That said, one point that may get overlooked in this discussion 

is something that economists refer to as the endowment effect. It 

matters who has a right to begin with. So, when we are starting 

now where we are, where we have a large body of laws, many of 

which contain very capacious language of delegation and authorization, under our current systems of deference, the agencies view 

themselves as being the ones with that first mover ability because 

they operate under this very broad, unbounded language that is 

only limited by sort of traditional and settled understandings rather than necessarily clear statutory barriers. And when those understandings fall away, the agencies view themselves as having a 

great deal of authority that Congress may well never have intended. So, that is the endowment they have. 

And, yes, you are right. Congress certainly can, in some instances—technically speaking, constitutionally in every instance— 

reverse those decisions. But, the problem is, there are enormous 

hurdles and veto gates that make it very difficult to do that when 

agencies start with that endowment. I mean, it matters who has 

what at step zero. 

Senator LANKFORD. May I ask you, what happens if Congress 

passes some sort of mandate, which I know you have affirmed before you do not think is a good idea, say we are not going to do 

Skidmore—or, I am sorry, we are not going to do Chevron deference. We are going to do something more like Skidmore deference. That is going to be the policy and we will try to push it 

back there. Obviously, Congress has the authority to do that. What 

happens if that occurs? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, as I discussed in my testimony, my general 

answer is I do not know. There is some reason to believe, based on 

empirical research, that the difference in judicial outcomes would 

not be very large. My hope would be, and it is my hope and it may 

be an idle hope, would be that it would change the mood that currently affects agency rulemaking and that agencies would recognize 

that they may well be subject to greater checks and that deference 

is not necessarily something they can count on at every instance. 

Do I know that would be the case? No, I do not. As I discuss in 

my testimony, it seems to me the best answer is really rigorous application of Chevron step one, but that is something, I think, that 

it would be very difficult for Congress to legislate. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, where is the check, as I have mentioned 

before, for an agency or an independent agency that they both create the rule, they interpret the rule, they enforce the rule, and if 

you want to appeal the rule, you are appealing the rule to the person sitting next door to the previous person that gave you the previous decision. There is no place to go outside. 

Banking is a good example of that. There is really no place to go 

to be able to get another opinion outside of this particular group 

of regulators, and so you may disagree with this opinion of this regulator, you may appeal it, but that same regulator is now going to 
26 

come back and is going to bring more things on you in the days 

ahead. Where do we build in a structure where there is not a due 

process outside of that entity? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Two responses. First of all, talking about an 

agency’s interpretation of their own rules, that is something that, 

I agree with the thrust of the questioning. That is something, I 

think, is worth considering, and I think could have some effect, and 

probably a positive effect. 

With respect to areas where judicial review is sometimes difficult 

to obtain and certain types of decisions are left within the agencies, 

it is a difficult question. There are some areas where, due to the 

statutory schemes that Congress has enacted, you effectively have 

procedural dead ends where it is difficult to get a final definitive 

judicial interpretation of the extent of an agency’s authority. 

It seems to me that where those exist, and there are fewer than 

they were in the past, those are ripe areas for Congress to consider 

what the proper procedure is. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Mr. Levin, do you have any comments 

on that? 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, I think that if you were to change the Administrative Procedure Act to provide that all agencies’ interpretations 

of law will be decided under Skidmore, I think you could be confident that it would cause enormous confusion, not just because 

Congress had enacted something new, and not just because the 

phrasing may be difficult to work out, as, I believe, has actually 

been the case with the recent bills, but also because the Skidmore 

test itself is considered to be one of the most indeterminate in all 

of American law. 

Senator LANKFORD. Is Chevron applied consistently? 

Mr. LEVIN. I would say in relative terms, Chevron is widely 

viewed as the more determinant and predictable standard. 

Senator LANKFORD. But, is it consistent? 

Mr. LEVIN. I do not think any standard is applied completely consistently I also think that there are judgment calls to be made and 

judges will bring other considerations to bear no matter what 

standard you provide. But, I would still say Chevron is considered 

a relatively determinate, Skidmore a relatively vague and indeterminate one. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK, so the challenge I still come back to is 

when there is the difficulty that sits before a judge, and there are 

moments, clearly, there are many moments where something is big, 

significant, and however you are going to determine significant, it 

is sitting before a judge to determine whether this agency is going 

to get deference to be able to make this rulemaking and to be able 

to finish this out with whatever the rule was, when it is vague, 

why is the assumption not given to Congress to say, the agency 

cannot act on this. Congress has to provide clarity. 

Why is the decision, yes, the agency is smart, they have done the 

research, they have done this, they are creating new ground. They 

are moving out into a new area that Congress may or may not have 

intended in the past. But instead of waiting on Congress to act, the 

agency is given forward motion and Congress has basically said, if 

you want to change the forward motion of this agency, Congress 

can then go back, pass a law, override a veto of the President, but 
27 

until they can get a Presidential override, this agency gets deference to keep moving as far as they want. 

Mr. LEVIN. I could be mistaken, but it sounds as though you are 

proposing a judicial revival of the so-called non-delegation doctrine, 

which is a theory that an agency cannot act until Congress provides specificity. That is a theory that has gotten some support in 

1935 and never since because the courts simply find themselves 

unable to deal with that. 

Senator LANKFORD. There are a lot of small areas of that. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. I am talking about major areas. There are 

major issues that have significant changes that now it is the battle 

to go take something back rather than to try to pass it. 

Senator HEITKAMP. But, let us stick with the Waters of the 

United States example. So, now you have this controversy. The regulation is moving forward. It is at OIRA, I believe, and so we are 

waiting. I do not think Congress should wait. I think Congress 

should play a role in making this determination. 

But, when you say, so, now let us say the court, instead of 

issuing the opinion that they issued, said, OK, hold off. We are not 

going to—you cannot do anything. You cannot interpret this until 

Congress interprets it. In the meantime, I have a farmer who 

wants to title their land and they have applied for a permit, or they 

need to know if they have to apply for a permit. And, so, in the 

real world—I am saying, in a theoretical world, that is fine, but 

these regulations have practical effect every day. And to say, we 

are simply going to stop—and, I think, the court would say that. 

We cannot just stop and say, put everything on pause, because we 

have real practical applications. 

Let us take King v. Burwell. So, what happens if the court says, 

we are going to stop until Congress acts. That creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty to the folks who have gone to the exchange, that is the Federal exchange, and have relied on the tax 

incentives on that exchange. 

And, so, I guess, my point in this is that, theoretically, where I 

have been arguing Congress needs to act, it also is probably not a 

path forward for what I would call a stay of any executive action 

pending the Congress doing its due diligence and fulfilling its responsibilities has huge impact in the real world. 

Mr. LEVIN. And, I do not want this comment to sound overly critical, but it is a fact that Congress has been much less productive 

over the past several years—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. That is OK, if you are overly critical. We are, 

too. 

Mr. LEVIN. Very well. But, it does not need to be, because I could 

just make the descriptive point that when you have the last two 

Congresses at historic levels of non-activity, the most—passing 

fewer laws than any other Congress in recorded history—it puts a 

great deal of pressure, in effect, on both the Executive Branch and 

the Judicial Branch to see if they can find ways for the government 

to go on and do what it needs to do and fill gaps. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, the question really is does it put pressure 

on the Executive Branch or does it give the Executive Branch opportunity? 
28 

Mr. LEVIN. Both. That is another way of putting it. 

Senator LANKFORD. But, that is the issue and that is the challenge, is that when we have—and there will be moments again, 

multiple moments, but under the trend that we are heading in the 

judicial deference, when we have divided government, which will 

happen a lot in America in the days ahead, does that create opportunities from here on out for the Executive Branch and all agencies 

to move through the vagaries of every rule that they can find, create as many policies as they can to have that deference, because 

they are smarter and they have done comments, whether they have 

acted on those comments or not, and to be able to move unchecked. 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, they have the authority that they have, and so 

there will be arguments about whether they have exceeded that authority. Courts will review those questions. The point I was making 

was that in the absence of legislative input, for better or worse, 

there will be impetus on both of those branches to make it possible 

for functions to be performed, and—— 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Oh, sorry. If I could, I mean, I agree with Professor Levin regarding the incentives, but I would note that the incentives actually work both ways. To the extent that the Executive 

Branch can take actions that reduce pressure on Congress to act, 

the result, understandably, will be inaction, and I think a paramount example of that is the numerous executive fixes that have 

been made to the Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And, I am not talking about controversial things like 

the exchange credits. I am talking about deadlines, mandatory 

deadlines that were set in law, and taxes that were set at certain 

rates and things of that nature, where—numbers and ‘‘shall’’ and 

things like that were altered. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Where the first analysis probably was, who 

is going to sue us if we do it, right? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, I think in many cases, the analysis that 

the executive agencies undertook was that nobody would have 

standing to sue them. And, so, you might have had an opportunity 

for Congress to come together, potentially, to make some number 

of fixes to this type of statute. But as it was, since the Executive 

Branch was making those fixes, there was absolutely no pressure 

at all on Congress to do that. 

Mr. LEVIN. I would not say there was no pressure on Congress 

to do it. I would say that it was not heeded. But, the upshot was 

that the agency had and has a program that it has been told to implement. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, I mean, if you take my example of King 

v. Burwell, if the judiciary decides we are tired of patching this together, what happens? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, I think King v. Burwell is really a very 

troubling case. I mean, it is troubling, first of all, in its implications, and I think everyone should acknowledge that, that if people 

who do depend on exchange subsidies lose them, that is, if that 

happened suddenly, that can have real consequences. 

But, it is also troubling because the way we got into this area 

was that the agency, by interpreting the law in a very implausible 

manner, changed the facts on the ground. In other words, it acted 

aggressively and the result was to put us in this bind, where if the 
29 

court decides in a certain way that is probably the most natural 

reading of the text, there will be dislocation and consequences. 

And, I think that is really an example of where we wind up when 

you have excessive deference—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Right—— 

Mr. GROSSMAN [continuing]. That agencies feel that they are able 

to do that. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And the court does not live in a vacuum. I 

mean, the court understands real world implications of their decisionmaking. They are not going to not consider the actual consequences. But, I think it is going to be a very interesting decision. 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, I think it is, but could I also add that I do not 

agree with the proposition that the position the government took 

was implausible. I think they took the position that they believed 

with great conviction was intended by Congress all along. If it is 

the case that for the Supreme Court to adopt Mr. Grossman’s reading would cause great disruption, that seems like a good reason to 

believe that the IRS got it right because it would be disruptive to 

have the world the way the challengers are urging. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, we should acknowledge that there is a 

split in the circuit on the actual interpretation of that statute, not 

just agency interpretation of it. 

Mr. LEVIN. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. Versus the plain text reading, which is—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. The discussion now is over, was that the intent and was the intent actually put into the statute. When you 

read the statute in its plain reading, and we can have a great discussion about this, but when you read the plain text, it reads one 

way, and when you hear speeches, you hear something different. To 

say the speed of how the law was written and done, did that line 

up with it, that is a whole different issue for a different day and 

for a different hearing, but we will—— [Laughter.] 

Mr. LEVIN. We could go on in that vein indefinitely if we wanted 

to. 

Senator LANKFORD. We could. This will be settled somewhere 

around June 25, there will be a decision up here one morning on 

the website and try to find some sort of resolution of what happens 

next from there. 

I appreciate your testimony and your preparation for this. As 

promised, we did not resolve all of this. What I hope we did is be 

able to gather some ideas. We do need to find some resolution. 

I am very concerned about the direction this continues to go in 

the back-and-forth nature of regulations unchecked on it without 

some consistency to business and individuals and families and cities and States trying to figure out where we are really going. So, 

literally, policies and regulations change at the whim of the executive rather than have some ongoing consistency. It is the nature of 

our great republic, that you have predictability in law. And, if we 

no longer have predictability in law and regulations, where things 

are going, it is a problem to us long term. 

So, I appreciate very much. I do believe that other individuals 

that were not on the dias will have 15 days to be able to submit 
30 

any kind of questions or opening statement they might want to put 

on the record. 

I appreciate you being here and being part of this conversation. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(31) 

A P P E N D I X 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Æ