#administrative-law

#administrative-law

For the past five years, I have taught Legislation & Regulation at Oklahoma City University School of Law, a course situated at the intersection of administrative law, statutory interpretation, and legislative design. Each semester, my students and I return to a foundational question: when, if at all, should courts defer to agency views, and when must the judiciary exercise independent interpretive judgment?

For the past five years, I have taught Legislation & Regulation at Oklahoma City University School of Law-a course at the crossroads of administrative law, statutory interpretation, and the legislative process. Each semester, my students and I return to a central inquiry: when, if ever, should courts defer to agency interpretations, and when must judges exercise their own independent judgment? That question has taken on new urgency in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent restructuring of administrative law.

Many districts have refused to comply with the administration's directives, issued under an executive order that labeled transgender people "false," prompting the withholding of tens of millions of dollars in federal education funds. Now, in a major development, a federal judge in Oregon has informed all parties in a lawsuit brought by 16 states that she intends to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the restrictions-marking a significant victory for transgender students and a sharp rebuke to those who see capitulation as the only path forward.

Chief Justice John Roberts let President Donald Trump remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, the latest in string of high-profile firings allowed for now at the Supreme Court. Trump moved to fire Rebecca Slaughter in the spring, but lower courts ordered her reinstated after she sued because the law only allows commissioners to be removed for problems like misconduct or neglect of duty.

"The Rule's illegality was patently obvious,"

Plaintiffs collectively challenge the decision to freeze and then terminate the grants on three primary grounds, contending that (1) the funding decisions were made in response to Harvard's refusal to capitulate to Defendants' content- and viewpoint- based demands and its subsequent decision to file a lawsuit, in violation of the First Amendment. The order added: (2) the grant terminations did not comply with the procedural requirements of Title VI and are thus invalid;