Search for: "Kent Barnett"
Results 1 - 20
of 124
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Apr 2024, 7:19 pm
Professors Kent Barnett & Christopher Walker argue in their piece, based on the amici curiae brief they filed, that the Court should not overrule Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 5:14 am
Rev. 983 (2016); Kent H. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 4:35 pm
Sunstein Juristocracy and Administrative Governance: From Benzene to Climate by Rachel Rothschild Chevron and Stare Decisis by Kent Barnett & Christopher J. [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 6:03 am
Sunstein The Deference Dilemma by Adrian Vermeule “Recommend … Measures”: A Textualist Reformulation of the Major Questions Doctrine by Chad Squitieri (Baylor Law Review forthcoming) Chevron and Stare Decisis by Kent Barnett & Christopher J. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 1:18 pm
Barnett & Ted Sichelman. [read post]
9 Nov 2023, 9:05 pm
WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK In a forthcoming article for the George Mason Law Review, Kent Barnett, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, and Christopher J. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 5:51 pm
Brief of Amici Curiae Professors Kent Barnett and Christopher J. [read post]
8 Oct 2023, 6:11 am
As part of the symposium, Kent Barnett and I will be contributing an essay, entitled Chevron and Stare Decisis, which is based on the amici curiae brief we filed in Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
8 Sep 2023, 12:14 pm
Raimondo in Support of Neither Party and in Defense of Chevron Deference by Kent Barnett and Christopher J. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am
This is Volume IV of the major questions doctrine (“MQD”) reading list. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 6:56 pm
See Randy Barnett's post referencing David Hardy's article. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 9:18 am
Today Kent Barnett and I filed our brief supporting neither party, in which we argue that the Court should not overrule Chevron. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 7:37 am
McKinney’s findings comport with prior research by Professors Kent Barnett and Chris Walker, who have suggested there may be “a Chevron Supreme” and “a Chevron Regular,” meaning that “Chevron deference may not have much of an effect on agency outcomes at the Supreme Court, but … it seems to matter quite a bit in the circuit courts. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 5:33 pm
This doctrinal difference has been well documented for years, earning the titles of “Chevron Supreme” and “Chevron Regular” by Professors Christopher Walker and Kent Barnett.[1] The Supreme Court rigorously applies the canons of statutory construction, finding ambiguity only when it has truly exhausted those canons. [read post]
31 Dec 2022, 10:34 am
This year’s committee was chaired by Tim Lytton, and its members were Kent Barnett, Lisa Bressman, Benjamin Eidelson, Sophia Lee, Ronald Levin, and Jed Stiglitz. [read post]
17 Dec 2022, 9:05 pm
In a study looking at cases from 2003 through 2013, Professors Kent H. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 7:45 am
This year, the chair of the committee was Professor Tim Lytton, and its members were Professors Kent Barnett, Lisa Bressman, Benjamin Eidelson, Sophia Lee, Ronald Levin, and Jed Stiglitz. [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 9:05 pm
That belief is greatly influenced by an empirical study conducted by Kent Barnett and Chris Walker. [read post]
3 Jul 2022, 7:15 am
In West Virginia v. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 11:09 am
After all, as Kent Barnett and I documented in our study of Chevron deference in the circuit courts, there may be “a Chevron Supreme” and “a Chevron Regular. [read post]
