Talk:United States administrative law

message: A little too much cleanup? I think this diff is definately removing too much info for just cleanup, some of the info should be useful. «»Who?¿?meta 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've brought some of it back. Amcfreely 05:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article looks like a slightly-cleaned up version of a second-year law student's admin law outline.  Besides the obvious stylistic issues, it completely ignores the whole other universe of administrative law — the strange realm of government manuals, handbooks, and bulletins that lies beyond the APA.  I'm referring to the SSA POMS, the USPTO OED General Requirements Bulletin, the MUTCD, and other similar documents which have de facto substantive legal effect but have never been promulgated properly through APA procedures. POMS exists in its own legal universe altogether while the Bulletin and the MUTCD are included in the CFR only by reference.  
Also, POMS has even been mentioned and given Chevron deference by the U.S. Supreme Court, even though it's not promulgated through APA rulemaking procedures!  It's amazing it's not mentioned here.  --Coolcaesar 08:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no one has bothered to defend the status quo.  I assume this means no one will mind when I start to move things around a bit in a few months (after I finish with Lawyer). --Coolcaesar 06:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess... 

message: I've removed the reference to the APA because the formal hearing provisions of the APA dont' get triggered unless a statute requires a "hearing on the record".  I figure a statute's incorporation of the APA would be covered under "required by statute". Idag (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjudication Hearings 

message: I've been adding some stuff from the 58th session of the Administrative Conference, but I don't think I'll get around to adding the science and recordkeeping stuff. In case anyone else wants to work on it... II | (t - c) 07:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  58th Plenary Session of the Administrative Conference 

message: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States Federal Regulation may be worth merging with this article. —rybec 05:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Creation draft 

message: The more condensed discussion as reverted by Prototime is incorrect, and too terse to be useful.  As reverted by Prototime, the comment above in "What a mess" applies: "This [section] looks like a slightly-cleaned up version of a second-year law student's admin law outline."
As reverted by Prototime, the section states a test for the distinctions, not the differences themselves.  The distinctions are explained earlier in the article,  Thus the heading as reverted by Prototime is incorrect.
The section as reverted by Prototime doesn't explain why the test matters.  The pre-revert discussion explains the test, why the test is what it is, when it's applicable, enough facts to understand the test as applied, and what the consequences are of being on one side or the other.
Prototime's concern that the content is "unsourced" is distinctly peculiar.  Is not the main content of the article a discussion of "rulemaking" and "adjudication?"  Does Prototime really suggest that every single cite from the rest of the article must be redundantly set forth here?
73.38.59.62 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for discussing this. Your contributions are appreciated, though your personal attacks are not, and we are not here to litigate your  personal experience in administrative law or mine. I do recommend you spend some time familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as the Manual of style; for example, headings in articles should not be entire sentences, which is why I replaced the heading with "Distinctions between rulemaking and adjudication". In addition, articles on Wikipedia are not self-referential; there should not be in-text notations saying things like "see the above section". Beyond that, in reading things over again, this entire section is redundant to the rest of the article, and I would recommend simply integrating its content into the above sections. The "situations" in which rulemakings are warranted should be in the Rulemaking section, and the "situations" in which adjudications are warranted should be in the Adjudications section. I have not done a thorough cite-check of the entire article, but if the citations are already there for these claims in the earlier sections, then this should be an easy task. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctions between rulemaking and adjudication 

message: Kinda trying to work some of my notes into Wikipedia. One thing I've noticed is that agencies feel hemmed in by their precedents and prior mistakes, so I thought Can a federal agency declare “regulatory bankruptcy”? was pretty interesting. In addition, sometimes a regulatory agency goes through a bad period and isn't functioning right, and businesses or people get used to that and feel upset when rules start being enforced, which brings up the idea of estoppel ("person is prevented from asserting certain matters before the court to prevent injustice"). I found this discussion of Agress v Clarkstown Cent. School Dist., 2010::as a general rule estoppel may not be invoked against a governmental body to prevent it from performing its statutory duty or from rectifying an administrative error there is an exception to this general rule "where a governmental subdivision acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who is entitled to rely and who changes his position to his detriment or prejudice." II | (t - c) 03:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regulatory bankruptcy and promissory estoppel 

message: In some cases, a regulatory agency has turnover, lots of "policy statements", and lots of corporate lobbyists asking for exceptions. Over time, this can turn into a mess where the law ends up being applied inconsistently. We see a lot of complaints about this in the media about how the big corporations get special treatment, but I haven't seen much academic coverage and this type of thing happens a lot at the smaller state level as well. Of course there is the equal protection clause but the rational basis test means that corporations don't seem to litigate based on it that much these days. Still, justice is blind and generally there shouldn't be too many carved out exceptions. I'd like to have a section on this... if anyone knows a good article, let me know. II | (t - c) 04:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticed Political Cycles of Rulemaking: An Empirical Portrait of the Modern Administrative State (2007) in my notes a bit ago which gets into these sticky de facto law issues. II | (t - c) 08:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness and administrative discretion applied to corporations 

message: There's something called Skidmore deference which isn't properly reflected in the current text. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem that Chevron and Skidmore are different enough to warrant separate discussion, e.g. Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC which has "Like tariff-classification rulings, which the Supreme Court held are entitled to Skidmore — not Chevron — deference". Feel free to add something. II | (t - c) 18:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd section added by User:ImperfectlyInformed 

message: This edit by  commented out a rough section on state law. I don't disagree with the edit, but we should try to circle back around to this. As a federation, state law is pretty important. Of note at the state level, the California Administrative Procedure Act predated the federal act by a year per The Influence of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act on California's New Administrative Procedure Act altho I'm not sure it influenced it much; also, it put administrative law judges onto central panels. II | (t - c) 10:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  State law needs work