Judicial Review in a Politicized Bureaucracy

Jessica Rehberg

Research Mentor(s): Devin Judge-Lord
Mentor Department:
Authors: Jessica Rehberg, Devin Judge-Lord
Session: Session 3 (11:00am – 11:50am)
Presentation Type: Poster 108

Abstract

This project examines how public pressure influences how the Court balances agency expertise with judicial oversight. The analysis focuses on two landmark Supreme Court cases: Loper Bright v. Raimondo and American Electric v. Connecticut. Within our evaluations, we compared dozens of key concepts or “case factors”, including: public engagement with regard to the decision, the role of “expertise” in opinions and dissents, and the citation of critical administrative law precedents, such as Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The analysis suggests that publicly scrutinized rules are less frequently overturned by the Supreme Court, which reinforces the idea that public engagement affects judicial decisions by shaping how courts strive to maintain perceptions of institutional legitimacy. Though cases that attract dozens of amici are sometimes reversed (as in Loper Bright), cases like this nonetheless show the importance of comments on the agency rule being reviewed (which were limited in Loper Bright) as a means of public input. The two examined cases also reveal a larger trend in administrative law cases: the role of perceived agency expertise in judicial decisions. Both American Electric and Loper Bright cite the idea of agency expertise, yet come to opposite conclusions, implying that “expertise” can be invoked as a rhetorical tool by the side who feels it is not being properly utilized. Finally, we see the frequent usage of administrative law precedents in cases that both support and detract from Chevron’s holdings. These two opinions represent the broader set of cases examined in this study as they manage the balance between court-led decision-making (as in Loper Bright) and agency-led decision-making (as in American Electric). This leads to questions for future work: If Loper Bright marks a real doctrinal shift, future cases like American Electric Power should yield different outcomes due to reduced judicial deference. If the shift is mostly rhetorical, courts may maintain similar patterns of upholding and striking down agency policies, just with different reasonings. At length, the findings from our analysis suggest that rules subjected to public scrutiny are less likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court, which reinforces the idea that public engagement affects judicial decisions by shaping perceptions of institutional legitimacy. Additionally, the study identifies trends in judicial deference, revealing that public participation and agency restraint in regulation tend to increase judicial support, while rulemaking on highly salient issues may elicit greater respect for an agency’s expertise. At length, these findings showcase a need for enhanced governmental responsiveness to civic engagement, including the establishment of offices dedicated to social justice and public participation. The project further concludes with policy recommendations needed for strengthening the ability of all branches of government to process and act on “political information.” By linking social movements to administrative processes and judicial decisions, this study, ultimately, contributes to understanding the critical role of public engagement in shaping the modern administrative state.