Making Our Democracy Work (40 page)

4.
Cf. Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education
, 550 U.S. 81, 93–95 (2007).

5.
Cf. Small v. United States
, 544 U.S. 385 (2005) (holding that a statute prohibiting firearm ownership by any individual “convicted in any court” of certain crimes did not apply to a person convicted in Japanese court);
Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League
, 541 U.S. 125, 132 (2004) (“ ‘[A]ny’ ” means “different things depending upon the setting”).

6.
Ali
, 552 U.S. (Breyer, J., dissenting).

7.
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy
, 548 U.S. 291, 303 (2006); Brief of Respondents at 8,
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy
(U.S. Mar. 28, 2006) (No. 05–18).

8.
Brief of Respondents,
supra
note 7, at 9–10.

9.
Id
. at 10–11.

10.
Murphy
, 548 U.S. at 294.

11.
Id
. at 297.

12.
Id
. at 313–16 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

13.
Id
. at 308–13 (emphasis added).

14.
See generally J. Gordon Christy, Federal Statutory Interpretation: The Gordian Knot Untied (Mar. 12, 2009) (unpublished manuscript on file with author) (defending reliance on statutory purposes in interpreting statutes as the only correct method of statutory interpretation).

15.
See, e.g., Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (2006) (“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal”);
Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006) (providing minimum sentences for multiple “violent felony” or “serious” drug crime offenses).

16.
For a classic statement of the criticism that Congress, as an institution consisting of multiple individuals, cannot have an intent, see Max Radin,
Statutory Interpretation
, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 863 (1930). For an equally classic response, see James M. Landis,
A Note on Statutory Interpretation
, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 886 (1930).

17.
Zadvydas v. Davis
, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

18.
Id
. at 684.

19.
Id
. at 685–86.

20.
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) (1994) (emphasis added);
Zadvydas
, 533 U.S. at 689.

21.
U.S. Const. amend V;
Zadvydas
, 533 U.S. at 690–92.

22.
Zadvydas
, 533 U.S. at 701.

23.
Id
. at 689 (citing
Crowell v. Benson
, 285 U.S. 22, 62 [1932]).

1.
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1.

2.
See
President’s Committee on Administrative Management, Report with Special Studies
(1937) (characterizing administrative agencies as a “headless ‘fourth branch’ ” of government).

3.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Career Guide to Industries, 2010–11 Edition
(2009),
www.bls.gov/oco/cg/home.htm
.

4.
James M. Landis,
The Administrative Process
46 (1938); Federalist 51 (James Madison).

5.
See M. J. C. Vile,
Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers
277–80 (1st ed. 1967) (tracing the history of the idea of public administration as an apolitical science).

6.
See 5 U.S.C. § 706; see, e.g.,
Service v. Dulles
, 354 U.S. 363, 388 (1957).

7.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6); see
Jackson v. Virginia
, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979); see 5 U.S.C. § 706.

8.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 68 v. National Labor Relations Board
, 448 F.2d 1127, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (Leventhal, J., dissenting).

9.
See Stephen Breyer,
Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy
, 38 Admin. L. Rev. 363, 365–67 (1986) (describing two opposing views toward agency decisions of law—one “deferential” and another “independent”);
id
. at 371–72 (“[T]he ‘delegation’ way of looking at deference … suggests that Congressional intent to make agency decisions of law binding is really a question of
how much
deference Congress intended courts to pay to the agency’s decisions, a matter of degree, not kind”).

10.
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a).

11.
National Labor Relations Board v. Labor Services, Inc.
, 721 F.2d 13, 14–15 (1st Cir. 1983);
cf
. Breyer,
supra
note 9, at 383 (“When writing an administrative law case book in the late 1970s, the authors could find only a handful of cases that faced so directly an agency policy decision and held it ‘arbitrary’; by the time the second edition was published in 1985, they found many more”).

12.
Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications
, 322 U.S. 111 (1944); see
Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council
, 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984) (noting that legislative delegation to an agency may be implicit, in which case a court must defer to a reasonable interpretation by the agency).

13.
See Breyer,
supra
note 9, at 370 (noting that courts have inferred legislative intent and looked to whether an agency has special expertise when deciding whether to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statutory provision).

14.
Chevron, 467
U.S. at 840–42;
id
. at 856–58;
id
. at 866.

15.
Id
. at 842–44.

16.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
, 549 U.S. 497, 505–6 (2007);
id
. at 528–30; 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g).

17.
19 U.S.C. 1500(b);
United States v. Mead Corp.
, 533 U.S. 218, 225–27 (2001);
id
. At 229–34.

18.
Mead
, 533 U.S. at 233.

1.
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann
, 285 U.S. 262, 280–311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

2.
Bernard Bailyn,
The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
55 (1967) (quoting James Madison); see U.S. Const. preamble; U.S. Const. amend. X.

3.
See Federalist 45 (James Madison).

4.
New State Ice Co.
, 285 U.S. at 311 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

5.
See Chantal Millon-Delsol,
L’état subsidiaire
13 (1992).

6.
See, e.g., art. 5, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, O.J. C 115/13, at 18 (2008). For a recent, general discussion of subsidiarity in European Union law, see Theodore Konstadinides,
Division of Powers in European Union Law
(2009).

7.
Case 90/86, Criminal Proceedings Against Zoni, 1988 E.C.R. 4285.

8.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.

9.
United States v. Lopez
, 514 U.S. 549, 551 (1995).

10.
For cases treating such issues, see, for example,
Wickard v. Filburn
, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); and
Gonzales v. Raich
, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

11.
Lopez
, 514 U.S. at 551; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; see
Lopez
, 514 U.S. at 558–59; see
id
. at 560–61 (citing
Wickard
, 317 U.S. at 128); see
id
. at 606–7 (Souter, J., dissenting).

12.
Lopez
, 514 U.S. at 551 (majority opinion);
id
. at 564–65.

13.
That is the position I took in my dissent.
Id
. at 619–22 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

14.
18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A).

15.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

16.
See
C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown
, 511 U.S. 383, 401–2 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring); see, e.g.,
Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison
, 520 U.S. 564, 595 (1997) (striking down a Maine statute that excluded, from its property tax exemption for charitable organizations, organizations operated principally for the benefit of nonresidents); see also
Wyoming v. Oklahoma
, 502 U.S. 437, 461 (1992) (striking down an Oklahoma law that discriminated against out-of-state coal producers).

17.
See, e.g.,
Wyoming
, 502 U.S. at 454–55 (“[W]hen the state statute amounts to simple economic protectionism, a ‘virtually
per se
rule of invalidity’ has applied” [citing
Philadelphia v. New Jersey
, 437 U.S. 617, 624 (1978)]).

18.
Cf. Wyeth v. Levine
, 129 S. Ct. 1187, 1191 (2009);
cf
. also
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
, 129 S. Ct. 538, 541 (2008).

19.
New State Ice Co.
, 285 U.S. at 271;
id
. at 273–77; Brief of the Appellee at 17,
New State Ice Co.
, 285 U.S. 262 (No. 463);
New State Ice Co.
, 285 U.S. at 281 (Brandeis, J., dissenting);
id
. at 310–11.

20.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1,
551 U.S. 701, 709–11 (2007).

21.
Id
. at 715–16.

22.
Id
. at 711–12;
id
. at 812–13 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

23.
Id
. at 709–11 (majority opinion);
id
. at 782 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment);
id
. at 832–35 (Breyer, J., dissenting);
id
. at 823–29, 855–58;
id
. at 836;
id
. at 803.

24.
Id
. at 866;
id
. at 849 (citing
Brown v. Board of Education [Brown II]
, 349 U.S. 294, 299 [1955]).

25.
Id
. at 862.

1.
See Robert C. LaFountain et al., National Center for State Courts,
Examining the Work of State Courts
(2007); and Statistics Division, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
2008 Annual Report of the Director: Judicial Business of the United States Courts
(2009).

2.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6).

3.
See, e.g.,
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.
, 336 U.S. 271, 275 (1949) (“A court of law, such as this Court is, rather than a court for correction of errors in fact finding, cannot undertake to review concurrent findings of fact by two courts below in the absence of a very obvious and exceptional showing of error”); see also Sup. Ct. R. 10;
United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc.
, 421 U.S. 397, 401 n. 2 (1975).

4.
Brown v. Allen
, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring).

5.
Horne v. Flores
, 129 S. Ct. 2579, 2588 (2009);
id
. at 2610 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

6.
Id
. at 2610–12.

7.
Id
. at 2590–92 (majority opinion);
id
. at 2612 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting that the district court hearing produced an evidentiary record of 1,684 pages);
id
. at 2608.

8.
Id
. at 2594–98 (majority opinion);
id
. at 2607;
id
. at 2608 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

9.
Flores v. Arizona
, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1160 (D. Ariz. 2007) (“There is no doubt that [the school district] is doing substantially better than it was in 2000”),
rev’d sub nom., Horne v. Flores
, 129 S. Ct. 2579 (2009).

10.
See generally Stephen J. Carroll et al., RAND Institute for Civil Justice,
Asbestos Litigation
xxiv (2005),
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG162.pdf
;
id
. at 45–48.

11.
See
id
. at 45–48.

12.
See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(b).

13.
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
, 521 U.S. 591, 602–4 (1997).

14.
Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc.
, 157 F.R.D. 246, 315–16 (E.D. Pa. 1994),
vacated
, 83 F. 3d 610 (3d Cir. 1996),
aff’d sub nom., Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
, 521 U.S. 591 (1997); 157 F.R.D. at 334–35.

15.
Amchem
, 521 U.S. at 597 (holding that the class certification failed to meet the requirements of the federal rules);
id
. at 622–27;
id
. at 625.

16.
Georgine
, 157 F.R.D.

17.
Amchem
, 521 U.S. at 633 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citation omitted);
id
. at 598 (majority opinion) (quoting
Report of the Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation
2–3 [1991]);
Ahearn v. Fibreboard Corp.
, 162 F.R.D. 505, 509 (E.D. Tex. 1995) (citing RAND studies);
id
. at 530;
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
, 527 U.S. 815, 866 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citing
Cimino v. Ray-mark Industries Inc.
, 751 F. Supp. 649, 651 [E.D. Tex. 1990]).

1.
Brown v. Board of Education
, 347 U.S. 483 (1954);
Plessy v. Ferguson
, 163 U.S. 537, 540 (1896);
id
. at 552.

2.
Brown
, 347 U.S. at 495.