Modeling Agency / Court Interaction


Emerson Tiller & Frank B. Cross

Responding to Matthew C. Stephenson, The Strategic Substitution Effect: Textual Plausibility, Procedural Formality, and Judicial Review of Agency Statutory Interpretations, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 528 (2006)

The positive political theory of legal rules, such as those providing for judicial review, has received far too little attention. Professor Matthew Stephenson’s analysis of his strategic substitution effect is therefore a significant development. In this Response, we acknowledge that he has made some material and valuable advances in the way we should think about the positive interaction of agencies and courts. However, his model has important limitations and in practice it may describe less than we would like. Nonetheless, the Article’s value can be found in its original conceptual ideas, which may be expanded upon to develop a more valuable theory of the effect of legal rules in administrative law.



120 Harv. L. Rev. F. 13 (2006) | DOWNLOAD PDF

Online Forum

Responding to Philip Alston, Does the Past Matter? On the Origins of Human Rights, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 2043 (2013)

Human Rights and History

Jenny S. Martinez



Responding to Neal Kumar Katyal, Stochastic Constraint, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 990 (2013)

A Reply to Professor Katyal

Jack Goldsmith


Responding to David A. Strauss, Not Unwritten, After All?, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1532 (2013)

American Constitutionalism — Written, Unwritten, and Living

Akhil Reed Amar


Reaction

Judicial Review of Targeted Killings

Jameel Jaffer


Reaction

Planning Responses and Defining Attacks in Cyberspace

Evan F. Kohlmann and Rodrigo Bijou



Reaction

Cyberdeterrence

Robert F. Turner


Reaction

Presidential Combat Against Climate Change

Richard J. Lazarus





Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)