University of Kwazulu-Natal

Dismantling The Administrative State A Framework For Analyzing The

Bonisiwe Shabane
-
dismantling the administrative state a framework for analyzing the

A remarkable movement is underway in the legal world, unlike any other during my lifetime. Growing skepticism regarding the conceptual underpinnings of the “administrative state”—the alphabet soup of powerful administrative agencies that dominate Beltway policymaking—portends imminent retrenchment of well-established understandings (and judicial precedents) that enabled the federal Leviathan. Doctrinal reversals of a significant nature are rare, particularly when they reflect conservative initiatives and overturn the foundations of Progressive governance. Yet we are on the verge of such a dramatic shift. For half a century—dating to New Deal-era reliance on administrative agencies to “fix” the ostensibly broken machinery of democracy and free markets—it was assumed that “administrative law” is an essential feature of modern life. Specialized expertise by unelected bureaucrats was the “secret sauce” that would remedy the purportedly sclerotic—and old-fashioned—system of checks and balances contemplated by the Constitution.

Justice Felix Frankfurter expressed the consensus view when he described administrative law as an essential form of “governmental supervision” that could not be effectively exercised through “self-executing legislation” or the judicial process. [1] Stanford University law professor Michael McConnell has described Chevron as “a central pillar of the modern administrative state. It is a systemic thumb-on-the-scales in favor of the government’s view of the meaning of the statute, even if that view changes with political winds and even if it contradicts earlier judicial interpretation.” Chevron... In the modern administrative state, Congress delegates vast swathes of policy-making power to the regulatory agencies, and the courts no longer even attempt to ensure that the key policy choices are made by the... The only practical limitation on excessive delegation is to construe delegations of power strictly, to ensure that the agencies exercise only the quantum of power Congress explicitly delegated to them.

Chevron goes the opposite way: it green-lights agency assertions of power, even when it is fairly obvious from the context that Congress had no such intention, so long as the words of the statute... Peter J. Wallison's Judicial Fortitude offers a brief and accessible introduction to the struggle to control the administrative state. A remarkable movement is underway in the legal world, unlike any other during my lifetime. Growing skepticism regarding the conceptual underpinnings of the “administrative state”—the alphabet soup of powerful administrative agencies that dominate Beltway policymaking—portends imminent retrenchment of well-established understandings (and judicial precedents) that enabled the federal Leviathan. Doctrinal reversals of a significant nature are rare, particularly when they reflect conservative initiatives and overturn the foundations of Progressive governance.

Yet we are on the verge of such a dramatic shift. For half a century—dating to New Deal-era reliance on administrative agencies to “fix” the ostensibly broken machinery of democracy and free markets—it was assumed that “administrative law” is an essential feature of modern life. Specialized expertise by unelected bureaucrats was the “secret sauce” that would remedy the purportedly sclerotic—and old-fashioned—system of checks and balances contemplated by the Constitution. Justice Felix Frankfurter expressed the consensus view when he described administrative law as an essential form of “governmental supervision” that could not be effectively exercised through “self-executing legislation” or the judicial process. [1] Indeed, there was widespread bipartisan consensus among both politicians and legal scholars that what we now call the administrative state was a good thing—or at least necessary and inevitable.

Chevron v. NRDC, the 1984 Supreme Court decision establishing judicial deference to administrative agency interpretation of federal statutes, was the high-water mark of our infatuation with administrative law. Stanford University law professor Michael McConnell has described Chevron as “a central pillar of the modern administrative state. It is a systemic thumb-on-the-scales in favor of the government’s view of the meaning of the statute, even if that view changes with political winds and even if it contradicts earlier judicial interpretation.” Chevron... Shortly after the 2016 election, presidential advisor Stephen Bannon vowed to pursue the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” signaling the new administration’s view that parts of government itself had stolen power from the American... But while the administrative state may have been a new term for many Americans, debates around this so-called fourth branch of government have persisted since its origins in the late nineteenth century: Is the...

Who controls it? What limits should it face? And is it time for significant change? The Summer 2021 issue of Dædalus explores the future of the modern administrative state—the more than two million civilian employees working largely in government agencies and institutions. Three options emerge: deconstruction via regulation and control by the legislature; tweaking, which would modify existing doctrine without making significant changes; and reconstruction, which might involve adopting ever more flexible modes of regulation, including... To understand contemporary arguments about deconstructing and reconstructing the modern administrative state, we have to understand where that state came from, and what its futures might be.

This introductory essay describes the traditional account of the modern administrative state’s origins in the Progressive era and more recent revisionist accounts that give it a longer history. The competing accounts have different implications for our thinking about the administrative state’s constitutional status, the former raising some questions about constitutionality, the latter alleviating such concerns. This introduction then draws upon the essays in this issue to describe three options for the future. Deconstructing the administrative state without adopting a program of across-the-board deregulation would entail more regulation by the legislature itself and would insist that Congress give clear instructions to administrative agencies. Tweaking would modify existing doctrine around the edges without making large changes. Reconstruction might involve adopting ever more flexible modes of regulation, including direct citizen participation in making and enforcing regulation.

Written for a dispersed agrarian population using hand tools in a local economy, our Constitution now controls an American government orders of magnitude larger that has had to respond to profound changes in transportation,... How did our government get to this place? The agencies Congress has created to meet these changes now face profound new challenges: transition from the paper to the digital age; the increasing centralization in an opaque, political presidency of decisions that Congress... Never easy, finding the appropriate balance between law and politics presents major challenges today. The modern administrative state, as measured by the number of agencies, their budgets and staffing, and the number of regulations they issue, has grown significantly over the last hundred years. This essay reviews the origins of the administrative state and identifies four milestone efforts to hold it accountable to the American people: passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946, the economic deregulation of...

These milestones reflect bipartisan consensus on appropriate constraints on executive rulemaking, but they have not succeeded in stemming the debate over the proper role for administrative agencies and the regulations they issue. New milestones may include judicial interpretations, legislative actions, and extensions to executive oversight. ScholarWorks > HHS > Social Work > JSSW > Vol. 50 > Iss. 2 (2023) Vicki Lens, Silberman School of Social Work Hunter CollegeFollow

administration, Supreme Court, governance Attacks on the administrative state are escalating. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is on track to reverse key pillars of administrative law that gives deference to an agency’s expertise and knowledge when interpreting its authorizing statute. This article explores the legal, ideological, and philosophical underpinnings of these doctrinal changes in administrative law and the likely effect on administrative governance. It aims to inform non legal stakeholders, including social workers, how legal doctrines and principles shape what executive agencies do, the consequences of doctrinal changes, and the implications for administrators, those they serve, and... Lens, Vicki (2023) "Deconstructing the Administrative State”: Legal Trends and Consequences," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol.

50: Iss. 2, Article 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.4675 Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol50/iss2/3 Project 2025 began quietly, as a 900-page manual from the conservative Heritage Foundation called Mandate for Leadership. According to Heritage, its goal is to prepare “the next conservative president” to... Copyright 2025 - Spreaker Inc.

an iHeartMedia Company Browse Spreaker Catalogue to discover great new content Browse Spreaker Catalogue to discover great new content For decades now, incoming Republican administrations have pledged to take on Washington and “check and reverse the growth of government,” as Ronald Reagan promised to do in his first Inaugural Address. Reagan’s promise echoed the same commitment that Richard Nixon offered in his now-famous 1971 annual message to Congress: “a new American revolution…in which power was turned back to the people.” This revolution, Nixon promised... At the outset of the Trump administration's first term, White House strategist Steve Bannon similarly claimed that “deconstruction of the administrative state” would be an administration priority.

Like Nixon and Reagan before him, Trump achieved minimal success in reversing the administrative state’s growth and reach. This pattern of promising to roll back the growth of the administrative state has repeated in the weeks following Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election. President-Elect Trump has chosen two high-profile supporters, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, to run a new “Department of Governmental Efficiency” (DOGE) dedicated to deconstruction. Although the details of its scope, structure, and authority are still vague, Musk and Ramaswamy have indicated that it will work with White House officials and the bureaucracy to achieve “structural reductions in the... Whether DOGE will overcome the obstacles plaguing previous attempts to deconstruct the administrative state remains to be seen. Musk and Ramaswamy emphasize different aspects of DOGE’s work (Musk touts the fiscal cuts DOGE will implement, and Ramaswamy highlights deregulatory initiatives).

However, they both promise that this new organization will succeed, whereas previous efforts to restrict and reverse the growth of government have failed. They write, “politicians have abetted [the bureaucracy] for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons.

We’ll cut costs.” “We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail,” they proclaim. Trump declared DOGE the “Manhattan Project of our time” and predicted that it would “dismantle Government Bureaucracy” and “slash excess regulations.” Will this time be different? How will DOGE seek to restrict and reverse the growth of government, and will it be successful? Conservatives generally believe that DOGE’s impact will dramatically affect the trajectory of the modern administrative state.

Roger Kimball predicts that although Trump “managed only to nibble around the edges of the administrative state” in his first term, “things will be very different in Trump’s second term.” Thus, conservatives seem to... Is their optimism justified? The Daily Journal search functionality is currently unavailable. We will have this back up as soon as possible. The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron Deference Doctrine, aligns with Project 2025's aim to curb Administrative State overreach.

By enhancing judicial oversight of agency rulemaking, the ruling may limit federal agencies' regulatory actions without clear legislative authorization. Founder The Law Offices of Selwyn D. Whitehead A Primer on how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises et al v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al abrogating the Chevron Deference Doctrine is advancing the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership’s goal of dismantling the “Administrative State.” I.

People Also Search

A Remarkable Movement Is Underway In The Legal World, Unlike

A remarkable movement is underway in the legal world, unlike any other during my lifetime. Growing skepticism regarding the conceptual underpinnings of the “administrative state”—the alphabet soup of powerful administrative agencies that dominate Beltway policymaking—portends imminent retrenchment of well-established understandings (and judicial precedents) that enabled the federal Leviathan. Doct...

Justice Felix Frankfurter Expressed The Consensus View When He Described

Justice Felix Frankfurter expressed the consensus view when he described administrative law as an essential form of “governmental supervision” that could not be effectively exercised through “self-executing legislation” or the judicial process. [1] Stanford University law professor Michael McConnell has described Chevron as “a central pillar of the modern administrative state. It is a systemic thu...

Chevron Goes The Opposite Way: It Green-lights Agency Assertions Of

Chevron goes the opposite way: it green-lights agency assertions of power, even when it is fairly obvious from the context that Congress had no such intention, so long as the words of the statute... Peter J. Wallison's Judicial Fortitude offers a brief and accessible introduction to the struggle to control the administrative state. A remarkable movement is underway in the legal world, unlike any o...

Yet We Are On The Verge Of Such A Dramatic

Yet we are on the verge of such a dramatic shift. For half a century—dating to New Deal-era reliance on administrative agencies to “fix” the ostensibly broken machinery of democracy and free markets—it was assumed that “administrative law” is an essential feature of modern life. Specialized expertise by unelected bureaucrats was the “secret sauce” that would remedy the purportedly sclerotic—and ol...

Chevron V. NRDC, The 1984 Supreme Court Decision Establishing Judicial

Chevron v. NRDC, the 1984 Supreme Court decision establishing judicial deference to administrative agency interpretation of federal statutes, was the high-water mark of our infatuation with administrative law. Stanford University law professor Michael McConnell has described Chevron as “a central pillar of the modern administrative state. It is a systemic thumb-on-the-scales in favor of the govern...