Search

Universal vacatur, the judicial power to void a regulation, is a remedy rooted in the foundations of modern administrative law, not an artifact of judicial overreach or creative reinterpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This Feature adds to the literature on the historical underpinnings and legal propriety of universal vacatur by mapping the development of universal vacatur from the pre-APA period through the Abbott Labs trilogy. Canvassing the work of courts, Congress, and scholars, this account underscores that universal vacatur is a legitimate part of the remedial scheme of administrative law, grounded in history and sustained by subsequent recognition. After establishing these points, the Feature connects the debate over universal vacatur to another topic of vigorous discussion in contemporary administrative law: the Roberts Court's recent fortification of the major questions doctrine. The case against universal vacatur leverages the intuition that an individual district court judge should not be able to decide issues of vast economic and political significance by vacating a rule universally absent a clear statement in the APA that the judge possesses that authority. That form of argument resembles the mechanics of the new major questions doctrine. As to their consequences, the two also align: both serve to centralize power in the Supreme Court by weakening actors of our government other than the Supreme Court. Though accepting the case against universal vacatur will certainly place curbs on lower court judges, it would also indulge, and thereby strengthen, the perilous proposition that the Supreme Court should intervene to redistribute congressional allocations of power in ways that centralize its own importance and preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chevron deference is an integral part of administrative law. However, the Supreme Court has not applied Chevron consistently throughout Chevron's nearly forty-year history. While trying to apply what facially appears to be a simple test, the Court has added more steps to the test, contradicted prior cases applying Chevron, and undermined Chevron itself. The Court has been especially unclear in four areas: deciding when a statute is ambiguous and applying the canons of construction, determining if an agency's interpretation has the "force of law," choosing whether prior precedents or an agency's new interpretation control when they conflict, and deciding whether to defer to an agency' s interpretation of the scope of its own authority . This confusion has made Chevron unworkable and undermines its durability as a precedent. Litigants have little confidence in how the Supreme Court will apply Chevron, let alone how the lower courts will apply it. Chevron has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced with de novo review. De novo review frees courts to find the right answer, and although not easy to apply, it is much more straightforward than Chevron. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

English administrative law has once distinguished between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law; establishing an error of law simpliciter was insu#icient for an applicant. It is now trite that English administrative law has abandoned this historical distinction; an error of law simpliciter is reviewable. This investigation asks: has Hong Kong administrative law followed the modern English position, or has the historical distinction been retained? In an analysis that has been of influence in the academic literature, Thomson has concluded that the Hong Kong authorities are ambiguous on this point - and that the doctrinal status quo is pedorce problematic. This investigation Teappraises Thomson's conclusion, and contends that the doctrinal status quo is in.fact clear: a clear line of authorities hom the Hong Kong Coult of Final Appeal afirms that an emor of law simpliciter is reviewable, and the historical distinction is no longer relevant for Hong Kong administrative law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focused on the issue of the privacy of administrative proof, which is widely considered one of the most important issues in administrative justice. Administrative proof relies primarily on the administrative lawsuit that includes two parties of unequal power: private individuals and the administration that possesses public authority. It has privileges and powers that eliminate the need to rely on the judiciary to carry out its activities against others. Often, you act as the defendant, which is considered a favorable position in legal proceedings, while the individual acts as the plaintiff, which often lacks any merits or supporting evidence. Therefore, he would be responsible for providing evidence, which led to the issue of imbalance between the parties involved in the administrative case. This study aims to clarify the precise nature and potential uncertainties associated with an administrative case, and our goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of its legal characteristics, thus providing valuable insights to the judge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the study of legality and discipline as one of the central principles of modern legal systems, the law of the European Union, where Ukraine is also trying to integrate. The activity of public administration bodies is not an exception in the defined sphere, because interaction with the population inevitably requires strict observance of positive law, but that is not all. A necessary element for the harmonious functioning of society and their orderliness is the observance of certain basic precepts of natural law, which wraps social relations with the spindle of its foundations and principles. At most, public administration is a type of state administration - a service that manifests itself in power-administrative activity. This type of work is a kind of «source of increased legal significance». It is substantiated that this term de jure, if it may look like an inappropriate epithet, de facto reveals the content of the issue and illuminates the actual state of affairs. The issuance of administrative decisions affects the legal fate of a specific individual or collective subject of the legal system. It was found that «service» and «services» provided at the expense of taxpayers are the terms that are intended to most fully reflect the essence of the activity of public administration bodies today, they are its key words. Simplify the lives of citizens, ensure the realization of personal property and non-property rights of a person in the field of housing, social, medical, educational issues, etc., coordinate and automate this work, guarantee permanent protection and protection of rights, balance between rights and responsibilities in society, ensure harmonious life individual social groups. At the same time, one should not forget the fact that the bodies of public administration on behalf of the state are endowed with exclusive competence, a kind of monopoly on the execution of certain actions, which is indicated by the abovementioned emphasis on power-administrative activities in general and the mention of «increased legal significance » in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the main directions of reforming Ukrainian administrative law is the modernization of the institute of administrative liability. Special attention is paid to improving mechanisms of responsibility for copyright and related rights infringements. In today's information society, the issue of intellectual property protection is becoming increasingly relevant due to the growing number of infringements of intellectual property rights. This article examines the system of measures of administrative liability applied to counteract violations in the field of intellectual property, its current state, and development prospects. The article explores the legal and organizational aspects of the system of administrative responsibility for violations of intellectual property rights. It analyzes the effectiveness of existing measures and their adequacy to contemporary challenges such as rapid changes in the technological environment and economic globalization. The article also analyzes current trends in the field of intellectual property, including the increase in cases of infringements of intellectual property rights due to rapid technological advancement and the spread of digital culture. Additionally, it investigates the impact of globalization on intellectual property rights violations and the effectiveness of measures of administrative responsibility in the context of international cooperation. The article also highlights the importance of cooperation between legal entities and government authorities for effective protection of intellectual property rights and prevention of their violation. The research also covers an analysis of the problems faced by administrative responsibility systems and identifies factors that may complicate the effective implementation of these systems and ways to address them. Based on the obtained data and analysis, the article provides conclusions regarding the need for further improvement of the system of measures of administrative responsibility for violations in the field of intellectual property. Specific measures are proposed to improve legislation, enhance control efficiency, and ensure effective protection of intellectual property rights owners. This article may be useful for researchers, lawyers, human rights activists, and government agencies interested in issues of intellectual property protection and the development of the relevant legal framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Economic Administrative & Legal Sciences is the property of Arab Journal of Sciences & Research Publishing (AJSRP) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Administrative law is a not a frequent subject of research in public administration, but it can reveal a great deal about the functioning of the public sector and governance in general. The nature of administrative law is, we argue, closely linked with administrative traditions, and therefore administrative law is an especially apt focus for comparative analysis. This article discusses administrative law in four countries representing different administrative traditions. The perspective is that of the student of public governance, rather than that of the lawyer, with the principal concern here understanding bureaucratic autonomy within the administrative system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Central European Public Administration Review is the property of University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Debate Jurídico Ecuador is the property of Universidad Regional Autonoma de los Andes (UNIANDES) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Law and morals are related as an ideal value in the formation of law, because morals are considered universal values that should ideally characterize every legal formation, with the hope that morality in the law can produce good behavior for legal subjects and objects. These morals and laws are in our administrative law, in this case the executive. The problem that is difficult to solve is the problem of corruption, where the act is legally and morally not good or wrong. Anti-corruption regulations are in place and the establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission reveals that the problem of corruption in our country is not resolved and is even more systematic. Ideally, with the advancement of civilization and the strengthening of moral values as the basis for rules, corruption will decrease to its lowest point from year to year as a government develops. Then, if this law represents a moral value, then the court decision, which is the law, can also contain moral values. As an example also regarding court decisions by state administration officials that are not implemented voluntarily, this can be equated with blatant disobedience to the law making state administration officials arrogant. Normative juridical analysis used in research includes legal and regulatory theory. Therefore, in order to achieve conformity regarding the morals and behavior of state officials in carrying out their duties, there is a close connection between the bad morals of state officials and behavior that violates the law. The good morals of state officials will make the behavior of state officials high and far from breaking the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Mediterranean Journal of Gender & Women's Studies (KTC) / Akdeniz Kadın Çalışmaları ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Dergisi is the property of Mediterranean Journal of Gender & Women's Studies (KTC) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Belügyi Szemle / Academic Journal of Internal Affairs is the property of Ministry of Interior of Hungary and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The main purpose of the article is a modern methodological approach to identifying and countering key negative factors that impede effective interaction between business and government in the region in the system of legal support for sustainable development. The object of the study is the business environment of Jordan and the features of its functioning in the context of sustainable development. The scientific task of the article is to form a modern approach to identifying and countering administrative and legal methods, and key obstacles in the system of interaction between business and government in the context of sustainable development. The research methodology involves the use of modern methods of structured Analysis, pairwise comparison and graphical modelling. As a result of the study, key problems were identified that impede an effective system of interaction between business and government in the region in the context of sustainable development. The innovativeness of the research results lies in the formation of a modern approach to identifying and countering the key problems of an effective system of interaction between business and government through legal support for sustainable development. The article is limited by taking into account the specifics of only one country. Prospects for further research are aimed at expanding the through legal support for sustainable development and taking into account more Middle Eastern countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The ne bis in idem principle, a fundamental right under Article 50 CFR, generally limits the possibility of a person being prosecuted or sanctioned twice for the same act, offense, or facts. At the same time, in EU law, it is often the case that a natural or legal person's factual conduct could potentially give rise to double response: one under criminal law and one under (punitive) administrative law. It may even be the case that a certain factual conduct can be judged and sanctioned under different regulatory regimes. The policy areas of prudential supervision and of the supervision of the anti-money laundering legal framework are a prime example of this phenomenon. When different authorities (prudential, AML/CFT supervisors and national judicial authorities), branches of law (administrative, criminal) and legal orders may be simultaneously competent to impose punitive sanctions for legal violations that stem from the same facts, how can the ne bis in idem be safeguarded? Does the current legal framework foresee rules to coordinate different sets of parallel or consecutive punitive proceedings? How can excessive sanctioning be prevented and is there a need for an integrated approach to ne bis in idem in EU law? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU enshrines the principle of ne bis in idem: no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law. In Case 27/22 Volkswagen Group Italia SpA and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, the Court of Justice rules on the cross-border application of and limitations to the principle of ne bis in idem against the background of the 'punitive follow-up' in Germany and Italy of the Volkswagen emission scandal. In this contribution, I discuss the judgment of the Court of Justice and provide some comments on the case. In my commentary, I specifically focus on the complex and controversial aspects of the cross-border application of and limitations to the principle of ne bis in idem, and the broader relevance of the judgment as an illustration of the current 'asymmetry' in the EU at the interface of punitive administrative and criminal law proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses recent developments in European administrative law, specifically focusing on the Court of Justice's extension of its case law regarding administrative penalties of a criminal nature. The Court applies three criteria to determine whether a penalty qualifies as criminal, including the qualification of the offense under national law, the nature of the offense, and the severity of the sanction. The article also examines the Court's approach to penalties labeled as criminal and the potential drawbacks of leaving the final qualification of the sanction to the referring court. Additionally, the article includes several other contributions discussing topics such as the principle of ne bis in idem, the quasi-judicial role of national competent authorities, and the challenges faced by regulatory authorities in the Dutch railway sector. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents the text of the keynote address by Philip S. Beck Professor of Law Jack M. Beermann on attacking and defending the administrative state. Beermann discussed his proclamation on the administrative state in an article called "The Never-Eending Assault on the Administrative State," Philip Hamburger's book, "Is Administrative Law Unlawful," and the two largest substantive sources of federal power that translate into administrative law.

The article outlines the issues that will determine the future of the major questions doctrine (MQD), one of the most controversial doctrines in the administrative law canon. Topics discussed include the best attribute of MQD, MQD's triggers and ontologies, and the pending domain issues including guidance documents, enforcement actions, and agency adjudications.

The administrative state is under attack. Judges and scholars increasingly question why agencies should have such large powers to coerce citizens without adequate democratic accountability. Rather than refuting these critics, this Article accepts that in scrutinizing the massive powers that agencies hold over citizens, these critics have a point. However, their solution--to augment the powers of Congress or the President over agencies to instill indirect democratic accountability--is one step too quick. We should first examine whether direct democratic accountability of agencies by the citizenry is possible. This Article excavates the nineteenth-century European intellectual history following the rise of the modern administrative state as inspiration to illuminate how agencies can improve their democratic credentials to justify their powers over the citizenry. While such thinkers might seem far afield of current public law discussions, this unlikely group of nineteenth-century legal and political theorists has already extensively theorized contemporary concerns about agencies coercing citizens without proper democratic accountability. These theorists, whom I call administrative "radicals," presented a much bolder conception of the role of agencies in governance than contemporary critics. Instead of stripping agencies of their powers, the radicals proposed democratizing the administrative state so the citizens could instill direct democratic accountability over the agencies that coerced them. Importantly, the radicals influenced the first generation of American administrative law scholars, who looked to these radicals to figure out how to democratize the nascent American administrative state. The radical tradition inspires us to transform the relationship between agencies and the citizenry and rethink how agencies fit within the separation of powers and administrative law. Instead of viewing agencies as stuck in the middle of a perpetual tug-of-war between Congress and the President, the radical tradition encourages us to focus on agencies themselves by shaping the relationships between agencies and the citizenry to instill direct democratic accountability. Under this radical separation of powers framework, the people serve as the common source of accountability for Congress, the President, and the administrative state. In doing so, embracing radical administrative law mitigates scholarly and judicial concerns that have inspired the revival of the nondelegation doctrine, elimination of removal protections, and the expansion of the major questions doctrine. The radical tradition also reinvigorates discussions of political equality in administrative law and suggests a reduced judicial role in policing the substance of agency decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of crime and disorder is increasingly based not only on criminal law, but also on administrative law. This paper deals with the question of how this double strategy can be understood from the perspective of institutional logics. This analysis is based upon a study in the Netherlands about the use of administrative powers in relation to criminal law. Special attention is paid to the relations between local government and the police. The study concentrates on three different administrative powers: the area ban, the closure of premises, and the power to refuse or revoke subsidies and permits if there is a risk that these may facilitate criminal activities. The study shows that the two logics may conflict, but also that new combinations of logics are created. These may create new tensions that result, in particular, from the dominance of criminal law over the administrative logic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article seeks to situate Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and statutory deadlines within the broader framework of administrative law and urge courts to take such deadlines seriously as a matter of congressional oversight. Topics discussed include overview of the pre-APA practice of compelling delayed executive action, how statutory deadlines interact with Section 706(1) of APA, and possible reasons for agency delay.

Decision-making in the administrative state increasingly relies on automated information processing. Yet administrative law has not kept pace. This creates a need for an institutional redesign of decision-making processes under the conditions of digitization and presents a window of opportunity to discuss the normative pillars of a renewed architecture for administrative decision-making. Automation creates an impetus for administrative actors to broaden their perspective from making singular, deterministic, and individual decisions to adopting a pluralist, probabilistic, and generalized approach to address any underlying more complex and dynamic problems. Therefore, this Article argues that the conventional normative goals of efficacy, efficiency, and legitimacy can only provide insufficient guidance for designing administrative technology. Instead, it proposes that administrative law should embrace the concept of "resilience" to open up a productive debate about the necessary framework of digitizing the executive branch in light of its current challenges. With this backdrop, this Article investigates the structures and resources of resilience in administrative law. In particular, it asks which infrastructure and mechanisms the administrative state can invoke in the face of antidemocratic forces that challenge its integrity. It argues that a resilient construction of the digital administrative state rests on three pillars: employing administrative foresight, "strategy-proofing" the administrative process, and designing a choice architecture [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of automated decision-making (ADM) carries an enhanced risk of failure to meet administrative law standards. This Article identifies Australian federal statutory schemes for ADM and instances of non-statutory use of ADM, with a view to evaluating the scope for the risk to be realized. Express provisions for correction of error, internal review avenues, and external review by tribunals and courts may not deliver satisfactory solutions. Despite a promising start, review and reform of the regulation of ADM use has lagged. However, in 2023, the Report of the Royal Commission into Robodebt gave the issue renewed impetus, recommending statutory frameworks for ADM and independent monitoring. That was so notwithstanding that the damage done by Robodebt in raising overpayment debts against social security recipients, which resulted not from ADM per se, but from the encoding of an unlawful policy into the ADM system. The failure to meet administrative law standards was a deliberate and persistent product of human agency. This indicates that reform consisting of reviewing and monitoring the use of ADM needs to be capable of exposing such errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's admonition that federal authorities should not "unduly interfere" with state government, federal agencies frequently write state laws. They draft model state acts. They comment on pending state bills. And behind the scenes, they quietly advise state legislators and governors' offices on proposed state legislation. Some agencies dedicate special divisions to work with states and track their legislation. Others work informally with state policymakers in overlapping areas of regulation and enforcement. Agencies have done this since the earliest days of our modern administrative state. Yet this function is mostly overlooked in canonical accounts of agencies' work and the vast literature on administrative law. This Article systematically maps this vital but unexamined aspect of the federal administrative state. Drawing on interviews and historical accounts from dozens of agencies, this Article charts how federal agencies shape state legislation and assesses the implications for administrative law and federalism. Federal-agency involvement in state legislation offers an important avenue for regulatory policymaking, but also one that bypasses the traditional constraints of administrative process, judicial review, anti-lobbying laws, and presidential oversight that apply to administrative agencies. Such involvement thus could prompt concerns about regulatory capture, partisanship, and drift inside the administrative state. Evidence from this Article suggests, however, that these concerns may be mitigated--and the benefits of federal-agency collaboration enhanced--when agencies adopt transparent and accountable practices that some federal agencies already observe. Understanding agencies' role in the statehouse also complicates the traditional account of state and federal government in our federalist system. The conventional account of American federalism assumes that when federal agencies act, they make uniform policies for the nation and that states separately make policies for their local constituencies, thereby providing testing grounds for programs that other states can adopt. The federal agencies described here flip that script. They participate in state policymaking while building state expertise and power; they develop subnational rather than uniform nationwide policies; and they transmit popular state legislation downward into the states and across them. Even as the Supreme Court has restricted agency demands on states in the name of federalism, this Article shows that federal agencies can use statehouses to further the values of federalism--among them, enhanced accountability, greater deliberation, and productive experimentation in the way we govern ourselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that the ambiguous nature of the major questions doctrine reflects the intelligible principle test. Topics discussed include origins of the intelligible principle test that prevents delegations of power from violating the vesting clause and separation of powers, failure of the test to protect the separation of powers leading to the creation of the major questions doctrine, administrative overreach, and moderation of delegations using the major questions doctrine.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has left administrative lawyers agog: Could the Supreme Court really reverse the "goliath" known as Chevron deference? For those who study the Court's interpretive landscape more broadly, however, Chevron reversal may not be as unexpected as administrative lawyers believe. This Article will look at Loper Bright by linking three notable interpretive developments: the major questions doctrine, Chevron skepticism, and strict constructions of statutory text. These developments share the same risk: the Court is imposing a new "clarity tax" on both Congress and administrative agencies. Having said this, others' grave worries about changes in Chevron are misplaced; the administrative state will not disappear even if Chevron does. This Article will urge readers to think more broadly than Chevron and consider larger trends of interpretive practice on the current Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The unfortunate events of recent years, due to the non-fulfillment or irresponsible fulfillment of service duties, have brought to the fore the discussions regarding administrative responsibility and liability. The paper below analyzes these two notions in a general way, then from a legal point of view and from the point of view of administrative law. Based on them, we formulate some conclusions and propose solutions, which we consider effective at this moment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In October 2022, President Biden requested that the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General initiate a procedure to review how marijuana is scheduled under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The announcement was historic. After more than fifty years of federal prohibition, decades of advocacy and litigation from reform groups, and dozens of stalled efforts in Congress, a President finally decided to wield the Executive Power with an eye towards rescheduling or descheduling marijuana. But just how far does that power go? Given President Biden’s request, the question is in serious need of scholarly attention. This Article accomplishes just that, diving deeply into the thicket of statutory and administrative law that dictates the scope of the President’s power to unilaterally reschedule or deschedule marijuana. In doing so, we conclude that the CSA’s administrative drug-scheduling procedure is broader than prior scholarship has let on. We identify several avenues for the President to move marijuana to a less restrictive schedule. The pathway to descheduling marijuana is, however, far narrower and more uncertain. These findings are immediately relevant. They can help guide the Executive Branch as it reconsiders how marijuana is scheduled and will prove useful to courts when the Biden Administration’s eventual decision is subjected to judicial review. Indeed, while this Article was in production, the Secretary of Health and Human Services recommended that the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) transfer marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA. The DEA’s decision of whether to accept that recommendation will, inevitably, be challenged in the courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Trump-era unitary executive movement sought to expand presidential power and shrink the influence of the administrative state through deregulation. This movement ripples into the present moment, as Trump's overhaul of the federal judiciary installed a comprehensive system to delegitimize administrative agency action-- a system that is certain to endure. The independence and role of administrative law judges (ALJs) has proven a key target of the movement. Most recently, in the 2022 case of Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tiered for-cause removal protections of SEC ALJs violated the Take Care Clause of Article II of the Constitution. This Comment argues that the Constitution sets out a functional inquiry for evaluating the removability of officials in the Take Care Clause, as opposed to the categorical inquiry erroneously adopted by the Fifth Circuit. If upheld by the Supreme Court, Jarkesy and the curtailment of ALJ independence will have a profound impact on not only the SEC, but all agencies, and the very fate of the administrative state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The past two decades have seen increasing interest in the quality of government as an explanatory factor for the performance of European Union (EU) Cohesion Policy. An under-researched strand of these studies is administrative capacity in Cohesion Policy. Against this background, this mini-special issue provides new perspectives on the theme of administrative capacity, providing new insights into the operation and effectiveness of administrative capacity-building measures implemented in the EU countries, particularly through the support provided by the Structural Funds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analyse European Union (EU) funds management systems performance using the cases of Hungary and Slovakia – two Central European countries with a common history and background, yet different concepts of EU funds management. We explore the role of administrative capacity and institutional stability as key factors affecting performance in both countries. We also provide evidence for the relationship between administrative capacity and non-compliance, measured by financial corrections, with a model robust to different programming periods and model specifications. Using the resulting baseline model applicable to all EU countries, we assess EU funds management system performance in Hungary and Slovakia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates whether territorial characteristics and, in particular, regional administrative capacity influence the effects of European Union (EU) Cohesion Policy support to firms. A novel two-step methodology is applied. First, the effects of Cohesion Policy on employment growth of supported manufacturing firms are estimated separately for the regions of six different EU countries. Second, potential territorial factors influencing these effects are explored using meta-analysis techniques. The empirical results point to a significant relationship between firm-level policy effects and territorial capital, especially mixed-materiality assets, as well as administrative capacity as proxied by citizen engagement and administrative efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does the quality of government improve the administrative performance of regions in European Union (EU) Cohesion Policy? This article analyses the relationship between the quality of government and multiple dimensions of administrative performance in Cohesion Policy. Using primary data on government quality combined with EU performance data for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the period 2007–13, regression analysis is undertaken for 173 European regions. The results confirm that government quality is a key determinant of administrative performance in terms of financial compliance, timely spending and outcomes. The findings support the need for capacity-building in regions with low quality of government to improve policy implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study examines the implementation of urban development strategies in Scotland, UK, and the Veneto Region of Italy and fills an important gap in the knowledge about the capacity-building potential of such strategies. Following a principal-agent approach, the investigation shows that narrow delegation models incentivize compliance, are less conducive to capacity-building and reinforce an administrative capacity paradox. By contributing an original framework for the study of delegation models, a fine-grained understanding of administrative capacity that acknowledges the importance of agency for the success of capacity-building initiatives and policy recommendations for the period 2021–27, the research will be of interest to scholars and practitioners alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Administrative capacities are among the crucial factors influencing success in European Union (EU) Cohesion Policy absorption. The current research concentrates on the public sector, while administrative capacities in other stakeholders are omitted. Our research focuses on whether local stakeholders from civil society have sufficient capacities to contribute effectively and efficiently to EU Cohesion Policy implementation. We performed our research on 57 integrated urban development plans in Czechia and Portugal and conducted 33 interviews with local entities. The results indicate a different level of capacity not only between the public and civil society organizations but also within civil society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The theory of constitutionalization of administrative law is one of the methods by which the constitution is protected. It is used when the fundamental rights and values as well as the principles in the constitution are implemented by administrative law. The system of administrative law is clearly influenced by the principles that constitute constitutionalization. Protection of the constitution is one of the most important issues in any legal system. [The Iranian] legal system is no exception to this rule, and judges have an important role to play in safeguarding the constitution. This theory is almost a decade old in our country. The results of this study, which is written in a descriptive-analytical method, indicate that due to the lack of a constitutional court [in the Iranian legal system], the two institutions of the Guardian Council with it’s priori supervision and the Court of Administrative Justice with its posteriori supervision, have taken steps to implement the neglected principles of the constitution and in this way the constitutionalization of administrative law has been gradually achieved [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human rights is a superior and valuable system and an evolved and modern form of natural rights, which consists of four fundamental principles: "the principle of human dignity and dignity", "the principle of freedom", "the principle of equality" and "the principle of fraternity" and other principles and rights proposed in the human rights instruments are under the mentioned principles. On the other hand, administrative law, which is a sub-branch of public law and defined in the constitution of every political system, and compared to other legal trends, is nascent and new, deals with regulating the relations between the administrative apparatus and government organizations with individuals and citizens. Recent developments regarding the duties and performance of governments in the social arena and their use of public privileges in order to "advance public order and social services" have caused violations of human rights standards in the field of administrative law system. The important point is the impact of human rights standards on the decisions of administrative courts and the effectiveness of administrative proceedings from human rights standards. In this research, according to the examination of the administrative laws of Iran, England and Australia, it has been tried to take advantage of the judicial procedure that has led to the development and implementation of the principles and rules of human rights. The research method in this paper is based on library studies and analyzesinformation in a descriptive-analytical way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the problem of liability for administrative fines, taking into account elements of a subjectivising nature of administrative liability to demonstrate the possibility of subsidiary application of criminal law provisions by public administration bodies. Through the analysis of the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, selected Regional Administrative Courts, the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, it is shown that the problem of measuring and imposing administrative fines on the basis of the provisions of substantive administrative law and Section IVa of the Code of Administrative Procedure requires a much broader analysis than any conducted thus far. Due to the legislator's failure to guarantee the correct scope of legal protection that would include demonstrating the circumstances that are also of a subjective nature, obliged entities have been deprived of numerous legal guarantees provided not only in Article 42(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland but also in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The analysis of the nature of administrative fines proves that the current regulations of Section IVa of the Code of Administrative Procedure require significant reform, in particular, to guarantee the absence of arbitrary imposition and execution of administrative sanctions by public administration bodies. Verifying the judgments from the point of view of taking into account the subsidiary application of the provisions of criminal law has made it possible to present a discussion on the nature of administrative liability, which is first and foremost of significance in terms of implementing the obligations of the State Party to the ECHR within the framework of taking into account subjective circumstances, but also in terms of the application of the ne bis in idem principle in the situation of concurrence of criminal and administrative liability. With this in mind, a de lege ferenda postulate is to amend the provisions of Section IVa of the Code of Administrative Procedure by including in its scope additional legal guarantees of obliged entities while taking into account the principle of legalism in its broadest sense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the historical development and administrative use of the ambiguous category "public spirit" by the French state between the First Republic and the Napoleonic Empire. Topics include the sociohistorical methods used to understand its construction, the transformation of government surveys into bureaucratic practices, and the transnational application of these administrative practices in the northern Italian peninsula during the Napoleonic era.