The United States Supreme Court and Health Law: The Year in Review: Gonzales v. Oregon and the Supreme Court's (Re)Turn to Constitutional Theory

Although this feature of the Rehnquist Court is widely-noted among legal scholars, its most prominent exponent is Cass Sunstein. See, e.g., Sunstein C. R. , One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (1999).

See McCreary County v. ACLU , 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005), and Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (2005).

Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2869.

126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006).

126 S.Ct. 904 (2006).

521 U.S. 702 (1997).

Ore. Rev. Stat. sec. 127.800 et seq.

521 U.S. 793 (1997).

545 U.S. 1 (2005).

21 U.S.C. sec. 801 et seq.

126 S.Ct. at 920.

Id., at 925. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion on the grounds that he thought the statute did vest the Attorney General with valid authority to issue the interpretive rule, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas. Id., at 926.

For a summary and critique of this development in the constitutional law academy, see Friedman Barry , “The Birth of an Academic Obsession: The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Five,” Yale Law Journal 112, no. 2 (2002): at 153.

United States v. Carolene Prods. Co. , 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

521 U.S. at 735.