Deborah Malamud presents a timely series on the Roberts Court, judicial interpretation, and the future of the administrative state.
Josh Blackman offers his tongue-in-cheek summary of the historic October Term 2019—when the Court decided Seila Law.
Jack M. Beermann contends that the Seila Law majority's distinction between multimember and single-headed independent agencies lacks legal and historical support and lays the groundwork for invalidating independent agencies altogether.
The core disagreement in Seila Law, writes David A. Strauss, was about historical practice and its role in determining what the Constitution requires.
Patricia A. McCoy argues that Seila Law puts at risk the longstanding independence of federal financial regulators and, with it, the U.S. economy.
In Seila Law, the Court invalidated the for-cause removal protection of the CFPB's director. Or did it? John Harrison explains that courts only find invalidity; they cannot make it.
Timothy G. Duncheon & Richard L. Revesz explain Seila Law as an example of ex post regulation of separation of powers. But ex post regulation may bring unexpected ex ante effects.
In remedying CFPB's separation-of-powers violation, Markham S. Chenoweth and Michael P. DeGrandis contend, the Seila Law Court worsened the constitutional defects in CFPB's funding structure.
Seila Law involved a constitutional puzzle with a straightforward answer. According to Jerry Mashaw, the Court overlooked the missing piece.
Jonathan Adler argues that Seila Law, like many cases this past term, exemplifies the Roberts Court's conservative minimalism.