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

This comment form is powered by GentleSource Comment Script. It can be included in PHP or HTML files and allows visitors to leave comments on the website.
Online Forum

Responding to Jody Freeman and Jim Rossi, Agency Coordination in Shared Regulatory Space, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1131 (2012)

The More the Merrier: Multiple Agencies and the Future of Administrative Law Scholarship

Eric Biber



Reaction

Salvaging Perry

Andrew Koppelman


Responding to James Q. Whitman, The Free Market and the Prison, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1212 (2012)

On the American Paradox of Laissez Faire and Mass Incarceration

Bernard E. Harcourt



Responding to Rebecca Tushnet, Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 683 (2012)

More Than a Thousand Words in Response to Rebecca Tushnet

Christina Spiesel






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)