This is an accepted version of this page
106-615: The ICC Termination Act of 1995 is a United States federal law enacted in 1995 that abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and simultaneously created its successor agency, the Surface Transportation Board . On December 1, 2020, Oklahoma City federal judge Charles B. Goodwin referred to this Act when he declared unconstitutional a 2019 State of Oklahoma law preventing trains from blocking streets for longer than 10 minutes; declaring, in part: . . .
212-401: A jury , and aggressive pretrial "law and motion" practice designed to result in a pretrial disposition (that is, summary judgment ) or a settlement. U.S. courts pioneered the concept of the opt-out class action , by which the burden falls on class members to notify the court that they do not wish to be bound by the judgment, as opposed to opt-in class actions, where class members must join into
318-542: A British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone ; but current British law almost never gets any mention." Foreign law has never been cited as binding precedent, but as a reflection of the shared values of Anglo-American civilization or even Western civilization in general. Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce . The United States Code
424-879: A Federal Register rulemaking notice) sets a "floor" under the rights of a party, individual employees have no discretion to back out of the agency's interpretation or create ad hoc exceptions adverse to the party. On judicial review, the effect of an interpretative rule was explained by the Eighth Circuit, discussing "well-settled principles of administrative law": Rules enacted by an administrative agency pursuant to statutory delegation [and with notice-and-comment procedure or formal rulemaking procedure], called substantive or legislative rules, must be judicially enforced as if laws enacted by Congress itself. Rules not enacted pursuant to an explicit statutory delegation of lawmaking power, called interpretive rules, are issued merely to provide guidance to parties whose conduct may be governed by
530-415: A breach of general obligations imposed by law and not by contract. This broad family of civil wrongs involves interference "with person, property, reputation, or commercial or social advantage." United States administrative law United States Federal Administrative Law encompasses statutes , rules, judicial precedents, and executive orders , that together form administrative laws that define
636-452: A court as persuasive authority as to how a particular statute or regulation may be interpreted (known as Skidmore deference), but are not entitled to Chevron deference. Unlike the situation with the states, there is no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law and thereby granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent like their English predecessors. Federal courts are solely creatures of
742-566: A final version is published in the Federal Register. The regulations are codified and incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which is published once a year on a rolling schedule. Besides regulations formally promulgated under the APA, federal agencies also frequently promulgate an enormous amount of forms, manuals, policy statements, letters, and rulings. These documents may be considered by
848-585: A handful of areas like insurance , Congress has enacted laws expressly refusing to regulate them as long as the states have laws regulating them (see, e.g., the McCarran–Ferguson Act ). After the president signs a bill into law (or Congress enacts it over the president's veto), it is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) where it
954-438: A legislative branch which enacts state statutes, an executive branch that promulgates state regulations pursuant to statutory authorization, and a judicial branch that applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations, as well as local ordinances. They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by
1060-426: A lesser form of judicial deference known as Skidmore deference . Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis . During the 18th and 19th centuries, federal law traditionally focused on areas where there was an express grant of power to the federal government in the federal Constitution, like
1166-409: A matter of fundamental fairness, and second, because in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and underlying public policies), which in turn would create hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability, and thereby undermine
SECTION 10
#17328510301711272-471: A medical issue and others categorizing the same offense as a serious felony . The law of criminal procedure in the United States consists of a massive overlay of federal constitutional case law interwoven with the federal and state statutes that actually provide the foundation for the creation and operation of law enforcement agencies and prison systems as well as the proceedings in criminal trials. Due to
1378-659: A minimum of procedural delay. So the law grants every agency the authority to promulgate interpretative rules, and to do so with minimal procedural fuss. By default, most interpretations slot into the *interpretative rule" category of 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). If an interpretation satisfies a long list of criteria, then the interpretation is binding on parties before the agency, courts, and the agency itself, under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (for agency interpretations of statute) or Auer v. Robbins (for agency interpretations of regulations). (The inquiries under Chevron and Auer are slightly different. But
1484-521: A number of civil law innovations. In the United States, the law is derived from five sources: constitutional law , statutory law , treaties, administrative regulations , and the common law (which includes case law). If Congress enacts a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, state or federal courts may rule that law to be unconstitutional and declare it invalid. Notably, a statute does not automatically disappear merely because it has been found unconstitutional; it may, however, be deleted by
1590-425: A particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control. As a practical matter, an agency operates under the agency's interpretative rules. The law permits parties before the agency to argue alternative interpretations, and under
1696-625: A small number of important British statutes in effect at the time of the Revolution have been independently reenacted by U.S. states. Two examples are the Statute of Frauds (still widely known in the U.S. by that name) and the Statute of 13 Elizabeth (the ancestor of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). Such English statutes are still regularly cited in contemporary American cases interpreting their modern American descendants. Despite
1802-489: A state or local government can address grade-level railroad crossing issues in a manner that does not run afoul of federal law . . . But a statute that tells railroad companies how long they may stop their trains — for whatever ends — intrudes on the territory reserved to the ICCTA. This United States federal legislation article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . United States federal law The law of
1908-522: A subsequent statute. Many federal and state statutes have remained on the books for decades after they were ruled to be unconstitutional. However, under the principle of stare decisis , a lower court that enforces an unconstitutional statute will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Conversely, any court that refuses to enforce a constitutional statute will risk reversal by the Supreme Court. The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to
2014-452: A violation of its interpretive rule. Rather, the agency must demonstrate to the court that no mere interpretive rule, but the underlying statute, has been violated. Certainly a court should give great weight to an agency's interpretation, as reflected in its interpretive rule, of the statute it administers, to determine the scope of the statute and whether it has been violated. But clearly, a claim of conduct inconsistent with an interpretive rule
2120-400: A willingness to reconsider others. And that willingness could itself threaten to substitute disruption, confusion, and uncertainty for necessary legal stability. We have not found here any factors that might overcome these considerations. It is now sometimes possible, over time, for a line of precedents to drift from the express language of any underlying statutory or constitutional texts until
2226-427: A year or less in jail and a substantial fine. To simplify the prosecution of traffic violations and other relatively minor crimes, some states have added a third level, infractions . These may result in fines and sometimes the loss of one's driver's license, but no jail time. On average, only three percent of criminal cases are resolved by jury trial; 97 percent are terminated either by plea bargaining or dismissal of
SECTION 20
#17328510301712332-441: Is no general federal common law . Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which was either enacted as part of the Constitution or pursuant to constitutional authority). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which
2438-456: Is a rule of necessity—essentially all laws have some ambiguity, that ambiguity has to be interpreted, and (for public-facing substantive rules) the agency is the party that can do so expeditiously and fairly. Deference follows to the degree the agency demonstrates fairness and diligence in developing its interpretation (under Chevron , Auer , or Skidmore v. Swift & Co. , as appropriate). The quid pro quo for an agency's choice to exercise
2544-626: Is advanced only to show that the statute itself has been violated. An action based on a violation of an interpretive rule does not state a legal claim. Being in nature hortatory, rather than mandatory, interpretive rules never can be violated. "Statements of policy" are even weaker statements than "interpretative" rules. Agencies use them to express agency preferences, but with no binding effect. Policy statements are "tentative intentions", nonbinding rules of thumb, suggestions for conduct, and tentative indications of an agency's hopes. Policy statements have no binding effect. A policy statement "genuinely leaves
2650-513: Is assigned a law number, and prepared for publication as a slip law . Public laws, but not private laws, are also given legal statutory citation by the OFR. At the end of each session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled into bound volumes called the United States Statutes at Large , and they are known as session laws . The Statutes at Large present a chronological arrangement of the laws in
2756-490: Is binding against members of the public, except— An agency can change its guidance with very little procedure (unlike a regulation), but as long as the guidance reads as it does, parties are entitled to rely on it for the three classes of promises listed above. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, many agencies attempted to bypass the APA's requirements for rulemaking by tucking rules that went beyond interpretation of ambiguity into informal documents like agency staff manuals and
2862-550: Is carried out internally within agencies by administrative law judges . The authority of federal administrative agencies stems from their organic statutes , and must be consistent with constitutional constraints and the scope of authority granted by statute. Federal administrative agencies, when granted the power to do so in a statutory grant of authority from Congress, may promulgate rules that have force of law. Agencies "legislate" through rulemaking —the power to promulgate (or issue) regulations. Such regulations are codified in
2968-429: Is encouraged to) issue advisory interpretations to guide the public. If an agency elects the "interpretative" shortcut, there are almost no procedural requirements, beyond the publication required by 5 U.S.C. § 552 and § 552(d). The decision maker must ensure that there is indeed an ambiguity that is not resolved by any binding law, but if the ambiguity exists, the decision maker simply interprets as best he or she may. If
3074-462: Is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions. Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague. Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form, such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers . Second,
3180-584: Is often supplemented, rather than preempted. At both the federal and state levels, with the exception of the legal system of Louisiana , the law of the United States is largely derived from the common law system of English law , which was in force in British America at the time of the American Revolutionary War . However, American law has diverged greatly from its English ancestor both in terms of substance and procedure and has incorporated
3286-423: Is permitted in some states but not others. Three strikes laws in certain states impose harsh penalties on repeat offenders. Some states distinguish between two levels: felonies and misdemeanors (minor crimes). Generally, most felony convictions result in lengthy prison sentences as well as subsequent probation , large fines , and orders to pay restitution directly to victims; while misdemeanors may lead to
ICC Termination Act of 1995 - Misplaced Pages Continue
3392-456: Is the most prominent of the small number of remaining equity courts. Thirty-five states have adopted rules of civil procedure modeled after the FRCP (including rule numbers). However, in doing so, they had to make some modifications to account for the fact that state courts have broad general jurisdiction while federal courts have relatively limited jurisdiction. New York, Illinois, and California are
3498-554: Is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations , which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations . From 1984 to 2024, regulations generally also carried the force of law under the Chevron doctrine , but are now subject only to
3604-540: Is usually expressed in the form of various legal rights and duties). (The remainder of this article requires the reader to be already familiar with the contents of the separate article on state law .) Criminal law involves the prosecution by the state of wrongful acts which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace (and cannot be deterred or remedied by mere lawsuits between private parties). Generally, crimes can result in incarceration , but torts (see below) cannot. The majority of
3710-610: The California constitutional convention was already complaining: "Now, when we require them to state the reasons for a decision, we do not mean they shall write a hundred pages of detail. We [do] not mean that they shall include the small cases, and impose on the country all this fine judicial literature, for the Lord knows we have got enough of that already." Today, in the words of Stanford law professor Lawrence M. Friedman : "American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite
3816-592: The Chevron deference remained in place, but future agency administration actions in interpreting Congressional language are more likely to be subject to judicial review. There are five levels of rulemaking procedure: "Nonlegislative rules" include three main classes: A class called "guidance" includes all rules not promulgated by legislative procedure. Such rules may be published as guidance, guidelines, agency staff manuals, staff instructions, opinion letters, interpretive memoranda, policy statements, guidance manuals for
3922-584: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and published in the Federal Register . Rules of lesser effect are published in a host of forms, including manuals for agency staff and for the public, circulars, bulletins, letter rulings, press releases, and the like. Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act gives the following definitions: The primary administrative law statutes and other laws that govern agency rule making include: Limits on
4028-448: The Erie doctrine is that federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue (and thus no federal supremacy issue) in a case. When hearing claims under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction , federal trial courts must apply the statutory and decisional law of the state in which they sit, as if they were a court of that state, even if they believe that
4134-476: The Federal Arbitration Act (which has been interpreted to cover all contracts arising under federal or state law), arbitration clauses are generally enforceable unless the party resisting arbitration can show unconscionability or fraud or something else which undermines the entire contract. Tort law generally covers any civil action between private parties arising from wrongful acts that amount to
4240-477: The Judiciary Acts ), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing . The rule gradually developed, case-by-case, as an extension of the judiciary's public policy of effective judicial administration (that is, in order to efficiently exercise the judicial power). The rule of binding precedent is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as
4346-464: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs if the rule meets certain criteria. Rules that are "economically significant" (meeting the criteria of "an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy") require a cost-benefit analysis . The Congressional Review Act passed in 1996 created a category of major rules , which are those that OIRA determines result in either: (1) "an annual effect on
ICC Termination Act of 1995 - Misplaced Pages Continue
4452-528: The United States comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law , of which the supreme law is the nation's Constitution , which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties . The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Acts of Congress , treaties ratified by the Senate , regulations promulgated by
4558-411: The executive branch , and case law originating from the federal judiciary . The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law. The Constitution provides that it, as well as federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to it, preempt conflicting state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S. states and in the territories. However,
4664-533: The military , money , foreign relations (especially international treaties), tariffs , intellectual property (specifically patents and copyrights ), and mail . Since the start of the 20th century, broad interpretations of the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution have enabled federal law to expand into areas like aviation , telecommunications , railroads , pharmaceuticals , antitrust , and trademarks . In some areas, like aviation and railroads,
4770-447: The rule of law . The contemporary form of the rule is descended from Justice Louis Brandeis 's "landmark dissent in 1932's Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co .", which "catalogued the Court's actual overruling practices in such a powerful manner that his attendant stare decisis analysis immediately assumed canonical authority." Here is a typical exposition of how public policy supports
4876-419: The "interpretative" option, and forego the formalities required for legislative rulemaking or for Chevron or Auer deference, is that the agency has very little enhanced power to enforce its interpretation. If a party challenges the agency's interpretation, an agency's invocation of the "interpretative" exemption surrenders any claim to heightened Chevron or Auer deference, and the interpretation falls into
4982-459: The United Kingdom lacked a coherent court hierarchy prior to the end of the 19th century. Furthermore, English judges in the eighteenth century subscribed to now-obsolete natural law theories of law, by which law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said. Judges saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, and not as making
5088-461: The agency and its decisionmakers free to exercise discretion", and "a statement of policy may not have a present effect: a 'general statement of policy' is one that does not impose any rights and obligations". Agencies likewise use "policy statements" to offer a unilateral quid pro quo or set a floor for agency procedure ("If you the public do X, we the agency promise favorable outcome Y. If you don't do X, you can still convince us to do Y by arguing
5194-433: The agency cannot expect the interpretation to be binding in court; because it does not have the force of law, parties can challenge the interpretation." Many courts have characterized interpretative rules as only "hortatory" and "lacking force of law". In proceedings before the agency, a party may advance alternative positions or interpretations, and the agency must address them, without relying on an interpretative rule as
5300-411: The agency's analysis, and courts regularly overturn "interpretative" rules. Some agency interpretations are binding on parties and the courts, under Chevron deference: Under the familiar two-step Chevron analysis, "[w]e always first determine 'whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. ' " "We do so by employing the traditional tools of statutory construction: we examine
5406-422: The agency's position can be characterized as an 'interpretation' of a statute or legislative regulation rather than as an exercise of independent policymaking authority." Mere "consistency" (in the sense of "absence of clash") is insufficient. Most "gap filling" is beyond the scope of *interpretative" authority. A valid interpretative rule merely explains, but does not add to or alter, the law that already exists in
SECTION 50
#17328510301715512-452: The agency’s interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statutory language at issue". But an agency has to earn this deference; it is far from automatic. When an agency interprets its own organic statute (for Chevron ) or a regulation that it promulgated (under Auer ), and the interpretation meets all the following prerequisites, only then does the agency receive the high deference of Chevron or Auer . In addition to
5618-401: The analytical similarities overshadow the differences. For this short article, we will gloss over the differences, and treat Chevron and Auer together.) Any interpretation that fails any one of the Chevron / Auer eligibility bullets from the list below falls into the residual category of "interpretative rule". Fundamentally, the § 553(b) "interpretative" exemption from notice and comment
5724-672: The authority granted to them by Congress (1) where the intent of Congress was ambiguous and (2) where the interpretation was reasonable or permissible. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Chevron is probably the most frequently cited case in American administrative law. However, in June 2024, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ; past administrative decisions made before Loper Bright under
5830-406: The average American citizen is subject to the rules and regulations of several dozen different agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, depending upon one's current location and behavior. American lawyers draw a fundamental distinction between procedural law (which controls the procedure by which legal rights and duties are vindicated) and substantive law (the actual substance of law, which
5936-405: The charges. For public welfare offenses where the state is punishing merely risky (as opposed to injurious) behavior, there is significant diversity across the various states. For example, punishments for drunk driving varied greatly prior to 1990. State laws dealing with drug crimes still vary widely, with some states treating possession of small amounts of drugs as a misdemeanor offense or as
6042-467: The class. Another unique feature is the so-called American Rule under which parties generally bear their own attorneys' fees (as opposed to the English Rule of "loser pays"), though American legislators and courts have carved out numerous exceptions. Contract law covers obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties. Generally, contract law in transactions involving
6148-405: The common law legal tradition of English law. Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder and general search warrants. As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis . American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to
6254-558: The controlling law."). A near-certain indicator of a "statement of policy" is the word "should" rather than "must". Agency policy statements are not binding on courts, and therefore receive no Chevron deference, not even weak Skidmore deference. "Guidance" is a residual category for any rule issued by an agency but not in a formally promulgated regulation. Most non- Chevron interpretative rules, and most general statements of policy, are issued as guidance. Only three classes of law administered by agencies are binding against members of
6360-456: The courts' decisions establish doctrines that were not considered by the texts' drafters. This trend has been strongly evident in federal substantive due process and Commerce Clause decisions. Originalists and political conservatives, such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia have criticized this trend as anti-democratic. Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there
6466-542: The crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted and punished at the state level. Federal criminal law focuses on areas specifically relevant to the federal government like evading payment of federal income tax, mail theft, or physical attacks on federal officials, as well as interstate crimes like drug trafficking and wire fraud. All states have somewhat similar laws in regard to "higher crimes" (or felonies ), such as murder and rape , although penalties for these crimes may vary from state to state. Capital punishment
SECTION 60
#17328510301716572-412: The economy of $ 100,000,000", (2) "a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions", or (3) "significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets". If
6678-592: The exact order that they have been enacted. Public laws are incorporated into the United States Code , which is a codification of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives , and cumulative supplements are published annually. The U.S. Code is arranged by subject matter, and it shows
6784-592: The extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government , including executive departments and independent agencies . Because Congress , the president , and the federal courts have limited resources to address all issues, specialized powers are often delegated to a board, commission, office, or other agency. These administrative agencies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets. Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has defined
6890-412: The extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases. The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted " reception statutes " which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it
6996-581: The federal Constitution and the federal Judiciary Acts. However, it is universally accepted that the Founding Fathers of the United States , by vesting "judicial power" into the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts in Article Three of the United States Constitution , thereby vested in them the implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent ; this power
7102-444: The federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. Thus U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract , tort , property , probate , criminal and family law , experienced by citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law , which, while sometimes harmonized, can and does vary greatly from one state to the next. Even in areas governed by federal law, state law
7208-450: The federal Senate. Normally, state supreme courts are the final interpreters of state constitutions and state law, unless their interpretation itself presents a federal issue, in which case a decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a petition for writ of certiorari . State laws have dramatically diverged in the centuries since independence, to the extent that the United States cannot be regarded as one legal system as to
7314-439: The federal government has developed a comprehensive scheme that preempts virtually all state law, while in others, like family law, a relatively small number of federal statutes (generally covering interstate and international situations) interacts with a much larger body of state law. In areas like antitrust, trademark, and employment law , there are powerful laws at both the federal and state levels that coexist with each other. In
7420-517: The following definitions: There are two ways that an individual can attain the right to a hearing in an adjudicative proceeding. First, the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment or 14th Amendment can require that a hearing be held if the interest that is being adjudicated is sufficiently important or if, without a hearing, there is a strong chance that the petitioner will be erroneously denied that interest. A hearing can also be required if
7526-496: The form of a statute or legislative rule. An "interpretative" rule cannot create a new requirement, carve-out, or exception from whole cloth. If the rule changes "individual rights and obligations" (rather than resolving ambiguity), the rule requires legislative procedure. An agency may promulgate interpretative rules outside the scope of its rule making authority. Where an agency can only issue legislative rules pursuant to an express grant of authority from Congress, an agency may (and
7632-479: The issue is outside the agency's scope of rule making authority, the agency must follow the agency or courts that do have authority on that specific issue. In return for the privilege of bypassing rule making procedure, the agency risks loss of binding effect for an interpretative rule. "An agency issuing an interpretative rule ... may well intend that its interpretation bind its own personnel and may expect compliance from regulated individuals or entities. Nonetheless,
7738-409: The issue, but has signaled in dicta that it sides with this rule. Therefore, in those states, there is only one federal court that binds all state courts as to the interpretation of federal law and the federal Constitution: the U.S. Supreme Court itself. The fifty American states are separate sovereigns , with their own state constitutions , state governments , and state courts . All states have
7844-467: The last word. But as a practical matter, agencies tend to enforce their interpretative rules until forced to concede error, and parties simply acquiesce until the costs of the agency's interpretation exceed the cost of court litigation. Interpretative rules are binding on agency employees, including its administrative law judges (ALJs). If an interpretative rule (say, a provision of an agency staff manual, or memorandum to agency staff, or interpretation in
7950-433: The latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas, like maritime law, has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English common law at the federal level (meaning that in those areas federal courts can continue to make law as they see fit, subject to the limitations of stare decisis ). The other major implication of
8056-411: The law, agencies are supposed to respond to the arguments, and not foreclose alternatives suggested by parties. But as a practical matter, agencies seldom give anything more than short shrift consideration to alternatives. On judicial review, the practical reality is that a court is most likely to agree with the agency, under Skidmore deference. But Skidmore deference is only as strong as the quality of
8162-428: The law. Therefore, a judge could reject another judge's opinion as simply an incorrect statement of the law, in the way that scientists regularly reject each other's conclusions as incorrect statements of the laws of science. In turn, according to Kozinski's analysis, the contemporary rule of binding precedent became possible in the U.S. in the nineteenth century only after the creation of a clear court hierarchy (under
8268-562: The legal rules and principles of administrative law in four parts: (1) define the authority and structure of administrative agencies; (2) specify the procedural formalities employed by agencies; (3) determine the validity of agency decisions; and (4) define the role of reviewing courts and other governmental entities in relation to administrative agencies. U.S. federal agencies have the power to adjudicate, legislate, and enforce laws within their specific areas of delegated power. The United States does not use administrative courts . Adjudication
8374-527: The like. This is simply illegal. The Executive Office of the President stepped in to stop bootleg rulemaking in 2007, and forbade this practice. Some agencies, for example, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, have nonetheless continued to defy the law, and state their formal refusal to implement the President's directive. Executive Order 12866 , which was issued in 1993, requires agencies (other than independent agencies ) to submit proposed rules for reviews by
8480-1132: The majority of types of law traditionally under state control, but must be regarded as 50 separate systems of tort law, family law, property law, contract law, criminal law, and so on. Most cases are litigated in state courts and involve claims and defenses under state laws. In a 2018 report, the National Center for State Courts ' Court Statistics Project found that state trial courts received 83.8 million newly filed cases in 2018, which consisted of 44.4 million traffic cases, 17.0 million criminal cases, 16.4 million civil cases, 4.7 million domestic relations cases, and 1.2 million juvenile cases. In 2018, state appellate courts received 234,000 new cases. By way of comparison, all federal district courts in 2016 together received only about 274,552 new civil cases, 79,787 new criminal cases, and 833,515 bankruptcy cases, while federal appellate courts received 53,649 new cases. States have delegated lawmaking powers to thousands of agencies , townships , counties , cities , and special districts . And all
8586-406: The mid-19th century. Lawyers and judges used English legal materials to fill the gap. Citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people. The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910. By 1879 one of the delegates to
8692-528: The most famous is the Miranda warning . The writ of habeas corpus is often used by suspects and convicts to challenge their detention, while the Third Enforcement Act and Bivens actions are used by suspects to recover tort damages for police brutality. The law of civil procedure governs process in all judicial proceedings involving lawsuits between private parties. Traditional common law pleading
8798-664: The most significant states that have not adopted the FRCP. Furthermore, all three states continue to maintain most of their civil procedure laws in the form of codified statutes enacted by the state legislature, as opposed to court rules promulgated by the state supreme court, on the ground that the latter are undemocratic. But certain key portions of their civil procedure laws have been modified by their legislatures to bring them closer to federal civil procedure. Generally, American civil procedure has several notable features, including extensive pretrial discovery , heavy reliance on live testimony obtained at deposition or elicited in front of
8904-416: The perennial inability of legislatures in the U.S. to enact statutes that would actually force law enforcement officers to respect the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and convicts, the federal judiciary gradually developed the exclusionary rule as a method to enforce such rights. In turn, the exclusionary rule spawned a family of judge-made remedies for the abuse of law enforcement powers, of which
9010-460: The power of agencies to promulgate regulations include: Agencies may not promulgate retroactive rules unless expressly granted such power by the agency's organic statute. Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital , 488 U.S. 204 (1988) There is no broad prohibition against an agency's regulation that does not serve the "public convenience, interest, or necessity." The law presumes that rulemaking conducted with procedural safeguards of
9116-582: The presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law. Although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other's rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution precedents from England or the British Commonwealth. Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary English cases, because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until
9222-567: The present status of laws (with amendments already incorporated in the text) that have been amended on one or more occasions. Congress often enacts statutes that grant broad rulemaking authority to federal agencies . Often, Congress is simply too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation, or Congress believes the agency's technical specialists are best equipped to deal with particular fact situations as they arise. Therefore, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations. Under
9328-462: The principle of Chevron deference, regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes. Regulations are adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Regulations are first proposed and published in the Federal Register (FR or Fed. Reg.) and subject to a public comment period. Eventually, after a period for public comment and revisions based on comments received,
9434-405: The public, circulars, bulletins, advisories, press releases stating agency position, and the like. The class of "guidance" is almost, but not exactly, coextensive with the union of the sets of interpretative rules, general statements of policy, and housekeeping rules. Every statute and regulation has some lingering ambiguity. Someone has to have authority to adopt some interpretation, and do so with
9540-592: The public: statute (as interpreted by the courts), regulations, and common law . Against members of the public, the default rule, embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and elaborated in the Good Guidance Bulletin, is that subregualtory guidance documents do not have force of law, and do not bind the public. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association , 575 U.S. 82 (2015); e.g., 15 C.F.R. § 29.2. Nothing in agency guidance documents
9646-580: The relevant state law is irrational or just bad public policy. Under Erie , such federal deference to state law applies only in one direction: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law. Similarly, state courts are also not bound by most federal interpretations of federal law. In the vast majority of state courts, interpretations of federal law from federal courts of appeals and district courts can be cited as persuasive authority, but state courts are not bound by those interpretations. The U.S. Supreme Court has never squarely addressed
9752-404: The residual category, under which a court gives Skidmore deference to an agency's informed position: We consider that the rulings, interpretations and opinions of the [agency], while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. The weight of such a judgment in
9858-468: The rest were unpublished and bound only the parties to each case. As federal judge Alex Kozinski has pointed out, binding precedent as we know it today simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed. Judicial decisions were not consistently, accurately, and faithfully reported on both sides of the Atlantic (reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked), and
9964-438: The rule is major, an additional report must be provided to congressional committees . About 2,500 to 4,000 rules are published per year. Of those, in 2012, 68% were classified as Routine/Info/Other while the remainder were Significant/Substantive. From 1997 to 2012, the number of major rules for Congressional Review Act purposes has ranged from 100 (2010) to 50 (2002). Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act gives
10070-453: The rule of stare decisis . This is where the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself, in that an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases (and therefore also implicitly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction). Prior to a major change to federal court rules in 2007, about one-fifth of federal appellate cases were published and thereby became binding precedents, while
10176-422: The rule of binding precedent in a 2008 majority opinion signed by Justice Breyer : Justice Brandeis once observed that "in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co. [...] To overturn a decision settling one such matter simply because we might believe that decision is no longer "right" would inevitably reflect
10282-593: The sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide as a result of the widespread adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, there is still significant diversity in the interpretation of other kinds of contracts, depending upon the extent to which a given state has codified its common law of contracts or adopted portions of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts . Parties are permitted to agree to arbitrate disputes arising from their contracts. Under
10388-464: The scope of federal preemption is limited because the scope of federal power is not universal. In the dual sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite because of the presence of Indian reservations ), states are the plenary sovereigns , each with their own constitution , while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than
10494-448: The state constitutions, statutes and regulations (as well as all the ordinances and regulations promulgated by local entities) are subject to judicial interpretation like their federal counterparts. It is common for residents of major U.S. metropolitan areas to live under six or more layers of special districts as well as a town or city, and a county or township (in addition to the federal and state governments). Thus, at any given time,
10600-661: The statutes and Executive Orders noted above reflect a rational balancing of interests by the agency, and a court will strike down a regulation only for violation of those procedures. Agencies are permitted to rely on rules in reaching their decisions rather than adjudicate, where the promulgation of the rules is within the agency's statutory authority, and the rules themselves are not arbitrary or capricious. Heckler v. Campbell , 461 U.S. 458 (1983). Agencies must abide by their own rules and regulations. Accardi v. Shaughnessy , 347 U.S. 260 (1954). Courts must defer to administrative agency interpretations of
10706-414: The statute’s text, structure, and legislative history, and apply the relevant canons of interpretation." "If we find 'that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect ... . ' " If we conclude that "Congress either had no intent on the matter, or that Congress' purpose and intent is unclear", then we proceed to step two, in which we ask "whether
10812-482: The three classical steps, an agency must observe additional procedural formalities: An "interpretative" rule sets out the agency's interpretation of a statute or rule, without altering rights or obligations. If the interpretation fails at least one of the Chevron / Auer criteria, then the interpretation falls into the category of "interpretative rule" which binds only the agency itself, and is entitled to at most Skidmore deference. The line for permissible exercise of
10918-411: The underlying statute, and to courts which must construe it. They "carry no more weight on judicial review than their inherent persuasiveness commands". They cannot be independently enforced as law. As a consequence of this distinction, while an administrative agency delegated legislative power may sue to enforce its legislative rule, just as it may sue to enforce a statute, it cannot ground legal action in
11024-409: The § 553(b) "interpretative" exemption is blurry—courts and treatise writers uniformly complain about this. The most basic requirement for the "interpretative" exemption is that the agency "interpret" a validly promulgated law (statute or regulation), by following a recognizable interpretative path originally set out by the statute or regulation. An agency may promulgate an "interpretative" rule "only if
11130-603: Was replaced by code pleading in 27 states after New York enacted the Field Code in 1850 and code pleading in turn was subsequently replaced again in most states by modern notice pleading during the 20th century. The old English division between common law and equity courts was abolished in the federal courts by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938; it has also been independently abolished by legislative acts in nearly all states. The Delaware Court of Chancery
11236-508: Was widely accepted, understood, and recognized by the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was ratified. Several legal scholars have argued that the federal judicial power to decide " cases or controversies " necessarily includes the power to decide the precedential effect of those cases and controversies. The difficult question is whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent through strict adherence to
#170829