6,993 research outputs found
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers\u27 Research: Brief of Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley as \u3cem\u3eAmici Curiae\u3c/em\u3e in Support of Petitioners
No full textJulian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley are professors at the University of Michigan Law School. Mortenson is a specialist on the history of executive authority and the separation of powers. Bagley is a leading scholar in administrative law. They are the co-authors of Delegation at the Founding, 121 Colum. L. Rev. 277 (2021), a leading article examining Founding- era constitutional principles regarding legislative delegations of authority, and Delegation at the Founding: A Response to the Critics, 122 Colum. L. Rev. 2323 (2022)
Faculty Views: The Legality of Delaying Obamacare\u27s Employer Mandate
No full textNicholas Bagley, assistant professor of law, teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, regulatory theory, and health law. Prior to joining the Law School faculty, he was an attorney with the Appellate Staff in the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he argued a dozen cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals and acted as lead counsel in many more. He also served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Portions of this article appeared in Professor Bagley\u27s blog posts on The Incidental Economist
Faculty Views: The Legality of Delaying Obamacare\u27s Employer Mandate
No full textNicholas Bagley, assistant professor of law, teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, regulatory theory, and health law. Prior to joining the Law School faculty, he was an attorney with the Appellate Staff in the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he argued a dozen cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals and acted as lead counsel in many more. He also served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Portions of this article appeared in Professor Bagley\u27s blog posts on The Incidental Economist
Recommended from our members
Faculty Views: The Legality of Delaying Obamacare\u27s Employer Mandate
No full textNicholas Bagley, assistant professor of law, teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, regulatory theory, and health law. Prior to joining the Law School faculty, he was an attorney with the Appellate Staff in the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he argued a dozen cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals and acted as lead counsel in many more. He also served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Portions of this article appeared in Professor Bagley\u27s blog posts on The Incidental Economist
Interview with Nicholas Christopher, author of Somewhere in the Night: Film Noir and the American City
No full textInterview with Nicholas Christopher, author of Somewhere in the Night: Film Noir and the American Cit
Trump v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Brief for Nicholas Bagley and Samuel L. Bray as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners
No full textAmici curiae are professors of law who have expertise that bears directly on one of the questions before this Court: Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules challenged by respondents.\u3c\p\u3e
This case squarely raises the propriety of an accelerating trend in the lower federal courts issuing injunctions that extend beyond the parties to bar enforcement of a challenged federal law or policy across the Nation. These injunctions are variously called national, universal, or nationwide. They are inconsistent with the proper role of the federal courts in our constitutional structure and they have no basis in traditional equity practice. They also lead to adverse practical consequences, both for the judicial system and for the federal government\u27s ability to do its work.\u3c\p\u3e
Amici take no position on the merits of the rules challenged by respondents in this case. If this Court reaches the question of remedy, however, it should reverse the court of appeals\u27 affirmance of the national injunction.\u3c\p\u3
Resurrecting the Author
No full textPresentation of Nicholas Wolterstorff\u27s Paper Resurrecting the Author with time after for questions beginning at 18:00
Agency Hygiene
No full textProf. Bagley notes that reshaping captured agencies using the structural reforms suggested by Prof. Barkow may be politically infeasible and offers an alternative solution for eliminating interest-group capture. First, he suggests establishing a body within the Executive Branch that proactively investigates and documents capture dynamics. Second, he suggests creating legislative mechanisms that will encourage Congressional action on the body’s recommendations, and perhaps, more provocatively, requiring the Executive Branch to enact any such recommendations in the absence of Congress’s formal objection
Agency Hygiene
No full textProf. Bagley notes that reshaping captured agencies using the structural reforms suggested by Prof. Barkow may be politically infeasible and offers an alternative solution for eliminating interest-group capture. First, he suggests establishing a body within the Executive Branch that proactively investigates and documents capture dynamics. Second, he suggests creating legislative mechanisms that will encourage Congressional action on the body’s recommendations, and perhaps, more provocatively, requiring the Executive Branch to enact any such recommendations in the absence of Congress’s formal objection
King v. Burwell: Brief for Professors Thomas W. Merrill, Gillian E. Metzger, Abbe R. Gluck, and Nicholas Bagley as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents
No full textThe Amici teach and write about federalism, constitutional law, and legislation. Amici submit this brief in the hope that its analysis of the federalism issues in this case will be of value to the Court.
The parties to this case have set forth two opposing interpretations of the Exchange provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119. Under petitioners\u27 interpretation, federal taxpayer subsidies are available only to those who purchase insurance on Exchanges that are set up by the States and are not available to those who do so on HHS-facilitated Exchanges. Under the government\u27s interpretation, federal subsidies are available to eligible taxpayers in every State, regardless of whether the State itself or HHS set up the Exchange in that State. Petitioners and the government, as well as the court below, have extensively discussed the texts and meanings of the relevant provisions of the ACA.
Amici have a range of views on how the case would be resolved in the absence of the federalism considerations discussed in this brief. Some amici agree with the government that 26 U.S.C. §36B(b), read in the context of the Act\u27s text as a whole, plainly does not disqualify individuals who are enrolled in plans through an Exchange operated by HHS from eligibility to receive premium tax credits. Other amici believe that the best understanding -of Section 36B(b) would be a closer question, or that other provisions of the ACA establish ambiguity about the meaning of Section 36B(b).
This brief does not rehearse the views of amici on the particular submissions of the parties. Amici wish to draw the Court\u27s attention, however, to a different aspect of this case. This Court has found that doctrines designed to preserve and protect the federalist structure established by the Constitution can and should have a significant impact on the interpretation of federal statutes. In particular, it is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress\u27 intent before finding that [a] federal law . overrides the usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons given below, this Court\u27s federalism doctrines, applied in light of the ACA\u27s structure and context, support the proposition that the relevant text of the ACA is, at the least, ambiguous. Petitioners\u27 interpretation would result in a significant intrusion on the usual balance between the state and federal governments that is not clearly embodied in the statute
- …
