Chicago-Kent College of Law

Newell, Natalie

English

The Illinois Cannabis Social Equity Program: Where it Went Wrong and How It Can be Fixed

Possible Wisdom and Wit Regarding the Arbitration of Discipline
By Jerry Marzullo, Esq., and Catherine Humphreyhttps://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/iperr/1127/thumbnail.jp

Marzullo, Jerry

Humphrey, Catherine

Vol. 39, No. 3

Levin, Ronald M.

Chicago-Kent Law Review 
Volume 97 Issue 1 Article 5 
9-6-2022 
The Evolving APA and the Originalist Challenge 
Ronald M. Levin 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview 
Recommended Citation 
Ronald M. Levin, The Evolving APA and the Originalist Challenge, 97 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 7 (2025). 
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol97/iss1/5 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 
It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT 
Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact jwenger@kentlaw.iit.edu, 
ebarney@kentlaw.iit.edu. 
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 8 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 8 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 8 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 8 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Chevron v. NRDC
Auer v. Robbins
Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
The Administrative Procedure Act: A Living and Responsive Law
Changing Times: The APA at Fifty
Changing Times
See infra
See infra
The APA and the Assault on Deference
Assault on Deference
Assault on Deference, supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 9 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 9 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Power Corp. v. NRDC
Legal Pragmatism and Presidential Power: A Case Study
Envisioning Administrative Procedure Act Originalism
Superstatute Theory and Administrative Common Law
Superstatute
Neoclassical Administrative Law
See, e.g. The Unwritten Administrative Constitution
Foreword: Embracing Administrative Common Law
Common Law and Statute Law in 
Administrative Law Administrative Common 
Law and the Opinion See generally The 
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 9 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 9 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Vermont Yankee
Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
by statute
Common Law and Statutes
supra
supra supra
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 10 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 10 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
by the Constitution
A.  Rulemaking 
Wong Yang Sung citing
Id
might Id
after
See Changing Times supra
See The Rise and Purported Demise of
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 10 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 10 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckel-
shaus
reply
How the Supreme Court Derailed Formal Rulemaking, 
ln Defense of Formal Rulemaking, 
Probing the Mind of the Administrator: Hearing Variations and 
Standards of Judicial Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act and Other Federal Statutes
The Regulatory Accountability Act and the Future of APA Revision
Regulatory Accountability Act
Comments on H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 
2011, .
see also
Statutes That Are Not Static—The Case of the APA
Not Static
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 11 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 11 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Adequacy
of Notice of Rulemaking Under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act—When Should a Second 
Round of Notice and Comment Be Provided?
Rulemaking and the Guidance Exemption
 Guidance Exemption
Interpretive Rules, Legislative Rules and Spurious Rules: Lifting the 
Smog
are not non-
should have been
Guidance Exemption, supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 11 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 11 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
general ap-
plicability
without notice and comment
B.  Adjudication 
Wong Yang Sung
The Case for (Finally) Fixing the APA’s Definition of “Rule
Id
The APA, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court
The Rediscovered Stages of Agency Adjudication
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 12 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 12 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Chevron
C.  Scope of Judicial Review 
Chevron Auer
Chevron Auer
Auer
Kisor v. Wilkie
Id
See, e.g.,
See Administrative Procedure and Judicial Restraint
See Assault on Deference, supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 12 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 12 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
See Assault on Deference, supra
See
Judicial Review of Informal Rulemaking
See Demystifying Deossification: Rethinking Recent Proposals to Modify 
Judicial Review of Notice and Comment Rulemaking
see generally Informal Rulemaking and 
the Integration of Law and Policy
See Regulatory Accountability Act supra
See id.
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 13 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 13 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Overton Park
Id
See supra Informal Rule 
Making: A Proposed Relationship between Administrative Procedures and Judicial Review
supra
Administrative Record in Informal 
Rulemaking
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 13 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 13 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
D.  Access to Judicial Review 
scope
access
within the meaning of a relevant statute
Remand Without Vacatur
“Vacation” at Sea: Judicial Remedies and Equitable Discretion in Admin-
istrative Law
See
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 14 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 14 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
E.  Summary 
VERMONT YANKEE
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) v. LTV Corp
Zone of Interests, 
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 14 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 14 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
or otherwise recognized by law
Vermont Yankee
PBGC
Vermont Yankee PBGC themselves
Vermont Yankee PBGC
Vermont Yankee PBGC
purports
Vermont Yankee
supra  and the Evolution of Administra-
tive Procedure A Hard 
Look at Environmental Low Under Close Scrutiny, 
supra
See supra
Vermont Yankee
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 15 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 15 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Reprocessing Vermont Yan-
kee
Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee 
Vermont Yankee
Mortgage Bankers
Reprocessing
Id
Id see id.
Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
Vermont 
Yankee Wong Yang Sung
Wong Yang Sung
See supra
Vermont Yankee
supra Vermont Yankee
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 15 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 15 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Vermont Yankee
and respond to
Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee
Id.
Id See
Vermont Yankee
supra
See, e.g
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 16 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 16 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
A.  The Pragmatic Calculus 
Vermont Yankee
supra
supra
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 16 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 16 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
An APA-Default Presumption for Administrative Hearings: Some Thoughts on 
“Ossifying” the Adjudication Process
Capture Theory and the Courts: 1967-1983
Guidance Exemption supra Interpretive 
Rules, Policy Statements, Guidances, Manuals, and the Like—Should Federal Agencies Use Them to 
Bind the Public?
Legal Considerations in Rulemaking
Mortgage Bankers Ass’n
Vermont Yankee
Sierra Club v. Costle
Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC
See, e.g Slip Slidin’ Away: The Erosion of ABA Adjudication,
supra
supra The Supreme Court 
and the APA: Sometimes They Just Don’t Get It
Waiting for 
III, IV, and V? A Response to Beermann and Lawson
Some Thoughts on “De-Ossifying” the Rulemaking Pro-
cess
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 17 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 17 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
B.  The (Arguable) Congressional Alternative 
any
See generally Statutory Reform of the Administrative Process: The Ameri-
can Experience and the Role of the Bar Statutory
Reform
See generally
Statutory Reform supra
See
Compare id with
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 17 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 17 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
not
C.  Stability 
Serv. Emp. Int’l Union, Local 1 v. Vos
Regulatory Accountability Act, supra
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 18 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 18 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Kisor v. Wilkie
the
Auer
Kisor
would
Id
id
citing
see also
Kisor,
Interpreting an Unamendable Text
Id
Id
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 18 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 18 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
current
become
Id
Id
Id
Id
Id
supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 19 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 19 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
A.  APA Originalism: Introductory Thoughts 
pur-
port
intentions
words
Assault on Deference supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 19 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 19 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Bostock
v. Clayton County
Bostock
See, e.g. Teaching the APA at 75
Ambivalence about Formalism
See, e.g., “We Are All Textualists Now”: The Legacy of Justice 
Antonin Scalia Fifty Shades of Textualism
Id
Id cf Which Textualism?
Bostock
Living Textualism
Textual Gerrymandering: The Eclipse of Republican Government in an Era of 
Statutory Purposivism Text is Not Enough
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 20 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 20 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,
Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Green-
wich Collieries, Inc.
Backdoor Purposivism
Id
Id Portland Ce-
ment supra
Textualism and the Administrative Procedure Act
See also The Supreme Court’s New 
Hypertextualism: An Invitation to Cacophony and Incoherence in the Administrative State
 Changing Times supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 20 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 20 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
American 
Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC
Portland Cement
Portland Cement
Vermont Yankee
State Farm’s
Id
 Changing Times supra
Id
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 21 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 21 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Kisor v. Wilkie
Id
See
See
rev’d sub nom.
How the Trump Administration Is Remaking the Courts
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 21 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 21 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Greenwich Col-
lieries
respond
selective
New 
Prime
New Prime
See, e.g. Countering the Majoritarian 
Difficulty
Statutory Originalism
Democratic Theory 
and the Legislative Process: Mourning the Death of Originalism in Statutory Interpretation
See also The Divergence of Constitutional and Statutory Interpreta-
tion
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 22 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 22 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
B.  A Preliminary “Vision” of APA Originalism 
See Judicial Review and the Uncertain Appeal of Certainty on Appeal
supra
Id
Id
Id
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 22 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 22 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
were it to be developed
judges’
the public
C.  APA Originalism and Superstatute Theory 
Id
Id
Id
Superstatute, supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 23 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 23 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Portland Cement
Florida East Coast
Progressive Textualism in Administrative Law
Progressive Textualism Rules about 
Rulemaking and the Rise of the Unitary Executive
Rulemaking
Superstatute supra Progressive Textualism supra
Progressive Textualism supra
Id
Superstatute supra
Id
Id Rulemaking, supra
Progressive Textualism supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 23 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 23 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
substance
Super-Statutes
Super-Statutes
Superstatute, supra
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 24 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 24 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
restraint
Id. quoting
Id see id
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 24 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 24 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
single
agency
single
A Republic of Statutes
Id see id.
supra
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 25 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 25 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
A Republic of Statutes
against
Superstatute, supra
supra
Id
Id
rulemaking
Id
supra Rulemaking’s Promise: Administrative Law and 
Legal Culture in the 1960s and 1970s
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 25 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 25 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
97.1.2 LEVIN MACRO 2 (0521) (DO NOT DELETE) 7/20/2022 4:02 PM 
42 CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW [Vol 97:1 
negative implication of their theory (as Kovacs apparently acknowledg-
es).179  Indeed, any such reading of their work would be decidedly ironic, 
because Eskridge’s vast corpus of scholarship on statutory construction has 
largely revolved around making a case for flexible, evolutive interpreta-
tion.180  I cannot think of any scholar in the United States who is more 
closely associated with advocacy of a flexible, evolutive approach to statu-
tory interpretation than he is.181
Although Kovacs’s thesis that expansive interpretations of the APA 
should be disfavored is based primarily on her position that such interpreta-
tions are not the products of public deliberations—a premise that I do not 
accept—she does make some other arguments in support of that thesis, and 
I should take note of those points.  Actually, to be precise, she frames these 
points as reasons to reject or be skeptical of administrative common law.  
However, in light of the thin and perhaps artificial nature of the distinction 
between administrative common law and creative interpretation of the 
APA,182 I think I should respond to these points here. 
Some of these arguments are formal in nature.  “The separation-of-
powers objection to common law is familiar.  The Constitution separates 
Congress’s power to make laws from the courts’ power to interpret laws in 
order to avoid tyranny and safeguard liberty.”183  Moreover, “there is the 
related but distinct problem of [the common law’s] lack of political ac-
countability.”  That is, “‘any exercise of lawmaking by federal courts rep-
resents a potential erosion of the principle of electoral accountability and 
hence presents a problem of legitimacy.’”184  Certainly, these points have 
some persuasive force.  As Kovacs goes on to acknowledge, however, they 
prove too much: “If those objections are sustained, then all common law is 
constitutionally illegitimate, and such an absolute objection to common law 
does not comport with current legal doctrine, which acknowledges that 
courts may sometimes ‘create law.’”185  The more meaningful inquiry, 
 179.  Kovacs, Superstatute, supra note 12, at 1248 (“It is counterintuitive to think of Eskridge and 
Ferejohn as cautioning that one hesitate before stretching the text of a superstatute, but in the case of the 
APA, that is the result their theory yields.”). 
 180.  See, e.g., WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., DYNAMIC STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (1994).  
 181.  Eskridge and Ferejohn do agree with the traditional view that penal statutes should be applied 
strictly, in contrast to both superstatutes and ordinary statutes.  Eskridge & Ferejohn, Super-Statutes, 
supra note 164, at 1247. 
 182.  See supra note 14-15 and accompanying text. 
 183.  Kovacs, Superstatute, supra note 12, at 1255. 
 184.  Id. at 1256 (quoting Thomas W. Merrill, The Common Law Powers of Federal Courts, 52 U.
CHI. L. REV. 1, 5 (1985)). 
 185.  Id. at 1256-57 (quoting Metzger, supra note 14, at 1347-48).  For an example of authors who 
do not concede the unreality of an absolutist approach, see Redish & Chung, supra note 144, at 805-07. 
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 26 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 26 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
Superstatute, supra
Id
Superstatute, supra
See supra
Scalia’s Bargain
Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from 
New Deal Politics
Superstatute, supra
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 26 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 26 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
considered
consideration
Portland Cement
D.  APA Originalism Plus Formalism 
Id.
Not Static, supra
Superstatute, supra see also Rulemaking supra
See supra supra
See supra
supra
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 27 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 27 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
good 
enough
Id
Id
Id
Id
Id
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 27 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 27 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
excludes
Id
Id
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 28 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 28 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Kisor
Id
Assault on Deference, supra
See generally Judicial Review of Agency Discre-
tion
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 28 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 28 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Chevron
Chevron
text
Chevron
Chev-
ron
Id
Guidance Exemption, supra
See
Levin Receives ABA Administrative Law Section 2019 Award for Legal Scholarship
supra
What 30 Years of Teach Us About the Rest of Statutory Interpreta-
tion Chev-
ron
Chevron other
One Hundred Fifty Cases Per Year: Some Implications of the Supreme 
Court’s Limited Resources for Judicial Review of Agency Action
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 29 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 29 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE
Chevron
E.  A Realpolitik Perspective on APA Originalism 
Chevron Auer
See supra
supra
Id potential
Id
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 29 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 29 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Florida East Coast Dominion
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 30 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 30 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
THE EVOLVING APA AND THE ORIGINALIST CHALLENGE


The Evolving APA and the Originalist Challenge

Roulo, David

Subject Matter 101: The Inconsistent Role the Patent Specification Plays in the Federal Circuit\u27s Eligibility Analysis

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Chicago-Kent Law Review 
Volume 97 Issue 2 Article 2 
12-23-2022 
Editorial Board 
Chicago-Kent Law Review 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview 
Recommended Citation 
Chicago-Kent Law Review, Editorial Board, 97 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. (2022). 
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol97/iss2/2 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of 
Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons 
@ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact jwenger@kentlaw.iit.edu, 
ebarney@kentlaw.iit.edu. 
44586-ckt_97-2 S
heet N
o. 2 S
ide A
      11/14/2022   08:34:53
44586-ckt_97-2 Sheet No. 2 Side A      11/14/2022   08:34:53
\\jciprod01\productn\c\ckt\97-2\boe972.txt unknown Seq: 3 11-NOV-22 14:26
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Illinois Institute of Technology
Published by the Chicago-Kent College of Law
Illinois Institute of Technology
565 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois  60661
KATHERINE HANSON
Editor-in-Chief
AMY CMIEL
Managing Editor
ELIZABETH JEDRASEK
Executive Notes & Comments Editor
EXECUTIVE ARTICLES EDITORS
AIDAN DOLIK RYAN MUHLSTOCK SCOTT SIMPSON
JACOB EARL MANUELA VERGARA PINILLA ANDREW WHITE
ANNIKA MORIN CAITLYN WORLEY
NOTES & COMMENTS EDITORS
ZOE APPLER QUINN LEWIS TAYLOR SHUMAN
HANNAH BUCHER SHAUNAGH MCGOLDRICK AARON WEISS
JESSICA KIBBE KEVIN SCOTT
WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA COORDINATOR
KELBY ROTH
SENIOR ASSOCIATES
NATALIE NEWELL
MIA RIVECCO
DAVID ROULO
YASMINE SADRINIA
ELSA SCHULZ
JUNIOR ASSOCIATES
KALI ALEXAKOS JACOB KAPLAN MITCHELL PARKER
MICHAEL BAY KAITLYN KLOSS OLIVIA POVEDANO
ALEXANDER BRADT RENEE KUMON BEATRICE RADAKOVICH
ALAN GALLIVAN ALYSSA LANIER IAN SCHMIDT
LARISA GAMBERG NAOMI LAZAR EVAN TURCOTTE
JACK GORMAN BENJAMIN LEVINE JULIA VEESER
DAVID GUERRA SUZANNA LEWIS ERIKA WAGNER
XAVIER HARRIS HAYLEY LOUFEK MEGAN WARSHAWSKY
MICHAEL HEALY RYAN MARTIN SYLVIA WOLAK
LAUREN HIPPLE AFREEN MOHIUDDIN JIE YANG
ELIZABETH HORWITZ MADELINE MOORE HALEY ZOBEL
NICOLE JANSMA SAMANTHA MUSICK
FACULTY CHAIR
MARK ROSEN
Member, National Conference of Law Reviews
ALEXANDER MAGALLI
Publication Coordinator
VOLUME 97 2022 NUMBER 2


Editorial Board

Pfeffer-Billauer, Barbara

German

SAVIOR SIBLINGS, PROTECTIVE PROGENY, AND PARENTAL DETERMINISM IN THE AGE OF CRISPR-CAS

Krent, Harold J.

Chicago-Kent Law Review 
Volume 97 Issue 1 Article 4 
9-6-2022 
Introduction 
Harold J. Krent 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview 
Recommended Citation 
Harold J. Krent, Introduction, 97 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 3 (2025). 
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol97/iss1/4 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 
It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT 
Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact jwenger@kentlaw.iit.edu, 
ebarney@kentlaw.iit.edu. 
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 6 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 6 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
97.1.1 INTRODUCTION KRENT MACRO (0521) (DO NOT DELETE) 7/20/2022 3:56 PM 
3
INTRODUCTION 
HAROLD J. KRENT*
This symposium marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the passage of 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).1  The APA lays out procedures 
that federal administrative agencies must follow in resolving adjudications 
and fashioning rules.  Moreover, the APA establishes the standards of review 
that federal courts must use when reviewing agencies’ resolution of adjudi-
cations as well as the rules and regulations that agencies promulgate.  The 
APA rightly has been termed a constitution for administrative agencies – a 
congressional creation of an innovative default structure governing federal 
administrative action.  Notably, then-Professor Antonin Scalia observed in 
1978 that “the Supreme Court regarded the APA as a sort of superstatute, or 
subconstitution, in the field of administrative process: a basic framework that 
was not lightly to be supplanted or embellished.”2  Certainly, the APA has 
been remarkably effective in establishing a framework for ensuring that 
agency decisionmaking is responsive to public concerns, and Congress has 
amended it only modestly in the generations after its enactment. 
Nonetheless, notable commentators3 and Jurists4 within the past several 
years have challenged this understanding of the administrative state, arguing 
principally that Congress never intended agencies to exercise such broad pol-
* Professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law. 
 1.  Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559. 
 2.  Antonin Scalia, Vermont Yankee: The APA, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court, 1978 
SUP. CT. REV. 345, 363 (1978). 
 3.  See, e.g., Aditya Bamzai, The Origins of Judicial Deference to Executive Interpretation, 126 
YALE L.J. 908 (2016) (arguing on historical grounds against judicial deference to administrative agency 
interpretation); Evan D. Bernick, Envisioning Administrative Procedure Originalism, 70 ADMIN. L. REV.
807 (2018); Kathryn E. Kovacs, Superstatute Theory and Administrative Common Law, 90 IND. L. J.
1207 (2015); Jeffrey A. Pojanowski, Neoclassical Administrative Law, 133 HARV. L. REV. 852 (2020); 
see also Nicholas Bagley, The Puzzling Presumption of Reviewability, 127 HARV. L. REV. 1285 (2014) 
(arguing against the longstanding presumption of judicial review of agency action based on newly un-
earthed historical materials). 
 4.  See, e.g., Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2432-37 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting); Radio 
Relay League v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 245-46 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part and 
dissenting in part). 
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 6 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 6 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
97.1.1 INTRODUCTION KRENT MACRO (0521) (DO NOT DELETE) 7/20/2022 3:56 PM 
4 CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW [Vol 97.1 
icymaking, including the pandemic policies recently embroiling the govern-
ment in controversy.5  Moreover, they have attacked judicial deference to 
agency interpretation of statutes and regulations,6 arguing that such defer-
ence under the APA has robbed judges of their core Article III power “to say 
what the law is”7 and resulted in shifting too much authority to unelected 
bureaucrats in the agencies.8  Participants in this symposium critique such 
attacks, both on the ground that the APA should not be construed with an 
“originalist” lens, and also because such arguments in any event are founded 
on an incorrect assessment of its history. 
Ronald Levin and Reuel Schiller both chastise the recent critics for re-
lying selectively on the historical materials and for reading the APA in a 
crabbed fashion.  As a framework statute, they argue, courts should interpret 
and reinterpret the Act as the function of both administrative agencies and 
the society in which they exist evolve.  Schiller argues in particular that read-
ing the history leading up to the APA more rigorously than have some of the 
critics reveals that there was no consensus as to the relationship between 
courts and administrative agencies prior to enactment of the APA.9  And, 
Levin concludes that, in considering the past seventy-five years of judicial 
review of agency action, Congress acted presciently in enacting the APA to 
help cabin agency discretion, and that judges have for the most part made 
beneficial adjustments to judicial review with the passing years.10
Emily Bremer and Blake Emerson, for their part, dive deeply into the 
historical materials preceding the APA to support current judicial doctrine.  
 5.  See, e.g., Lauren Hirsch, Biden Asks OSHA to Order Vaccine Mandate at Large Employers,
N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 9, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/business/osha-vaccine-biden-man-
date.html [https://perma.cc/FLV8-6ZN6]. After the symposium, the Supreme Court controversially 
blocked the Biden Administration's mandate, through OSHA, that large employers require their employ-
ees either to be masked and tested for COVID or be vaccinated.  The Court reasoned in part that OSHA 
could not pursue such sweeping measures in the absence of clear congressional guidance.  Nat’l Fed’n of 
Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Lab., OSHA, 142 S. Ct. 661, 664-65 (2022). The decision vividly manifests the 
new skepticism of administrative agency authority.  See also John Kruzel, Florida Asks Supreme Court 
to Block CDC’s Limit on Cruise Ship Industry, THE HILL (July 7, 2021), https://thehill.com/regula-
tion/court-battles/564615-florida-asks-supreme-court-to-block-cdcs-limits-on-cruise-ship
[https://perma.cc/UU67-LT3R].  
 6.  Courts defer to reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutory language pursuant to the 
Chevron doctrine, first articulated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 
(1984).  See also King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) (questioning whether Congress would have 
intended agencies to decide major tax policy at stake under the Affordable Care Act). 
 7.  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.137, 177 (1803). 
 8.  Under their view, the APA directs courts, not agencies, to interpret the law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 
(referring to the “reviewing court”); see also supra notes 3-4. 
 9.  See infra p. 53.
 10.  See infra p. 7.
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 7 S
ide A
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 7 Side A      08/25/2022   12:47:28
97.1.1 INTRODUCTION KRENT MACRO (0521) (DO NOT DELETE) 7/20/2022 3:56 PM 
2022] INTRODUCTION 5 
In delving into the historical materials, Bremer defends the oft criticized Su-
preme Court decision in United States v. Florida East Coast Railway,11
which held that the formal rulemaking provisions in the APA are disfavored.  
She explains that the decision turned on the dual nature of ratemaking as-
sessed in that case, part rule-like and part adjudication, a view which she 
argues would have been familiar to the APA drafters.12  The Court, when 
confronted with that reality, put a thumb on the scales in favor of informal 
rulemaking because of the potential legislative quality of the ratemaking at 
stake. 
Blake Emerson probes the history preceding enactment of the APA to 
conclude that the recent critics have misunderstood the fundamental recog-
nition at the time that agencies by necessity exercised significant policymak-
ing authority.13  He does not attack the work of originalists in all respects, 
but on the policymaking point, persuasively argues that both proponents and 
opponents of the APA recognized that agency exercise of policymaking dis-
cretion was inevitable, certainly through rulemaking, and even to some ex-
tent through adjudication.  From that basis, he questions the underpinnings 
of the major questions doctrine limitation under Chevron14 and recent calls 
for invigoration of the nondelegation doctrine.15
Finally, Sophia Lee explores the extent to which the APA has facilitated 
access to justice for marginalized groups.16  Her argument is not based on 
legislative intent, but rather on the courts’ expansion of the right to sue under 
the APA, which has led to more public interest litigation.  In particular, she 
highlights how the Black Efforts for Soul in Television organization in the 
late 1960s deployed tools under the APA to fight for greater racial represen-
tation in the broadcast industry and, in so doing, helped reform the APA.  
Thus, although the administrative state in some instances has perpetuated 
structural racism, it also has opened avenues for constructive change. 
In short, the excellent articles that follow cast light on the forces that 
led to the APA’s enactment, provide commentary on subsequent judicial 
elaboration, assess the practical impact that the APA has made on the public, 
and put forward both historical and contemporary reasons to be skeptical of 
the arguments of the recent wave of APA originalists. 
 11.  410 U.S. 224 (1973). 
 12.  See infra p. 79. 
 13.  See infra p. 113. 
 14.  See, e.g., King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2488-89 (2015). 
 15.  See, e.g., Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2136 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). 
 16.  See infra p. 161. 


Introduction

Chicago-Kent Law Review 
Volume 97 Issue 2 Article 1 
12-23-2022 
Copyright 
Chicago-Kent Law Review 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview 
Recommended Citation 
Chicago-Kent Law Review, Copyright, 97 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. (2022). 
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol97/iss2/1 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of 
Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons 
@ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact jwenger@kentlaw.iit.edu, 
ebarney@kentlaw.iit.edu. 
44586-ckt_97-2 S
heet N
o. 2 S
ide B
      11/14/2022   08:34:53
44586-ckt_97-2 Sheet No. 2 Side B      11/14/2022   08:34:53
\\jciprod01\productn\c\ckt\97-2\ms972.txt unknown Seq: 4 11-NOV-22 14:26
Cite this volume as: 97 CHI.-KENT L. REV. — (2022).
The Chicago-Kent Law Review is published by the Chicago-Kent College of
Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, 565 West Adams Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60661-3691; telephone: (312) 906-5190. Single issues are available for
$15 plus shipping. Requests for single issues may be sent via mail or to
cklawreview@kentlaw.iit.edu. Chicago-Kent College of Law assumes no
responsibility for any statement appearing in this publication.
Except where otherwise expressly provided, the Chicago-Kent Law Review
and the author of each article, note, and comment in this issue of the
Chicago-Kent Law Review grant permission to reproduce and distribute, in
whole or in part, that article, note, or comment for educational purposes
including distribution to students, provided that the copies are distributed at
or below cost; the copies identify the author, the Chicago-Kent Law Review,
the volume, the number of the first page, and the year of the article’s
publication; and that proper copyright notice is affixed to each copy.
Copyright © 2022 by Chicago-Kent College of Law
http://cklawreview.com


Copyright

Chicago-Kent Law Revew

Chicago-Kent Law Review 
Volume 97 Issue 1 Article 1 
9-6-2022 
Copyright 
Chicago-Kent Law Revew 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview 
Recommended Citation 
Chicago-Kent Law Revew, Copyright, 97 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. (2025). 
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol97/iss1/1 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of 
Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons 
@ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact jwenger@kentlaw.iit.edu, 
ebarney@kentlaw.iit.edu. 
44385-ckt_97-1 S
heet N
o. 2 S
ide B
      08/25/2022   12:47:28
44385-ckt_97-1 Sheet No. 2 Side B      08/25/2022   12:47:28
\\jciprod01\productn\c\ckt\97-1\ms971.txt unknown Seq: 4 25-AUG-22 12:31
Cite this volume as: 97 CHI.-KENT L. REV. — (2022).
The Chicago-Kent Law Review is published by the Chicago-Kent College of
Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, 565 West Adams Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60661-3691; telephone: (312) 906-5190. Single issues are available for
$15 plus shipping. Requests for single issues may be sent via mail or to
cklawreview@kentlaw.iit.edu. Chicago-Kent College of Law assumes no
responsibility for any statement appearing in this publication.
Except where otherwise expressly provided, the Chicago-Kent Law Review
and the author of each article, note, and comment in this issue of the
Chicago-Kent Law Review grant permission to reproduce and distribute, in
whole or in part, that article, note, or comment for educational purposes
including distribution to students, provided that the copies are distributed at
or below cost; the copies identify the author, the Chicago-Kent Law Review,
the volume, the number of the first page, and the year of the article’s
publication; and that proper copyright notice is affixed to each copy.
Copyright © 2022 by Chicago-Kent College of Law
http://cklawreview.com


Chicago Kent College of Law

Not a member yet

The Illinois Cannabis Social Equity Program: Where it Went Wrong and How It Can be Fixed

Vol. 39, No. 3

The Evolving APA and the Originalist Challenge

Subject Matter 101: The Inconsistent Role the Patent Specification Plays in the Federal Circuit\u27s Eligibility Analysis

Editorial Board

SAVIOR SIBLINGS, PROTECTIVE PROGENY, AND PARENTAL DETERMINISM IN THE AGE OF CRISPR-CAS

Introduction

Copyright

Copyright

Did Sotera Stipulations Solve the Fintiv Criticisms?

5,849

8,353