The 2024 overturning of Chevron will have modest immediate effects: the Supreme Court was already fiercely skeptical of major administrative action, and appeals courts will seek to maintain a pragmatic, labor-saving respect for agencies that leaves settled legal questions undisturbed. But overturning Chevron is part of wider doctrinal shifts unfriendly to administration and favorable to elected partisans. This trend cannot be changed, or even clearly understood, within the premises of modern administrative law, which have frayed law’s ties to administrative practice. A critical review of those premises and revival of preceding, alternative constitutional visions of administration are sorely needed.
BlachlyF. F.OatmanM. E. (1946). Sabotage of the administrative process. Public Administration Review, 6(3), 213–227.
4.
BousheyG. T.McGrathR. J. (2017). Experts, amateurs, and bureaucratic influence in the American states. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 27(1), 85–103.
5.
BozemanB.NelsonJ. P.BretschneiderS.LindsayS. (2024). The deformation of democracy in the United States: When does bureaucratic “neutral competence” rise to complicity?Public Administration Review, 84(5), 796–816.
6.
BurbankS. B.FarhangS. (2017). Rights and retrenchment: The counterrevolution against federal litigation. Cambridge University Press.
7.
CarelliD.PetersB. G. (2024). Autonomy by decree: How administrative law shapes bureaucratic autonomy in four administrative traditions. Administration & Society, 56(5), 683–703.
8.
DavisS. (2019). The new public standing. Stanford Law Review, 71, 1229–1304.
9.
DeaconD.LitmanL. M. (2023). The new major questions doctrine. Virginia Law Review, 109, 1009–1094.
10.
DouglasJ. A. (2014). The right to vote under state constitutions. Vanderbilt Law Review, 67, 89–150.
11.
EisenachE. (1994). The lost promise of progressivism. University Press of Kansas.
12.
GetmanJ. J. (2016). The Supreme Court on unions: Why labor law is failing American workers. Cornell University Press.
13.
KolibaC. (2025). Liberal democratic accountability standards and public administration. Public Administration Review, 85(1), 21–31.
14.
LubbersJ. S. (2012). A guide to federal agency rulemaking. American Bar Association.
15.
MashawJ. (2018). Reasoned administration and democratic legitimacy: How administrative law supports democratic government. Cambridge University Press.
16.
McNollgast. (1999). The political origins of the Administrative Procedure Act. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 15(1), 180–217.
17.
MerrimanB. (2019). Conservative innovators: How states are challenging federal power. University of Chicago Press.
18.
MerrimanB.ParkerJ. N. (2022). Voting rights and the cloak of administrative incompetence. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 12, 1–60.
19.
NovakW. J. (2022). New democracy: The creation of the modern American state. Harvard University Press.
20.
OrrenK.SkowronekS. (2017). The policy state: An American predicament. Harvard University Press.
21.
PotterR. A. (2019). Bending the rules: Procedural politicking in the bureaucracy. University of Chicago Press.
22.
RosenbloomD.O’LearyR. (1997). Public administration and law. Marcel Dekker.
23.
SeifterM. (2018). Further from the people? The puzzle of state administration. New York University Law Review, 93, 107–174.
24.
SmithN. L.YackeeS. W. (2024). A new measure of US public agency policy discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 34(3), 404–417.
25.
SneadW. (2023). The Supreme Court as an agent of policy drift: The case of the NLRA. American Political Science Review, 117(2), 661–674.
26.
TelesS. (2008). The rise of the conservative legal movement: The battle for control of the law. Princeton University Press.
27.
VerkuilP. R. (1978). The emerging concept of administrative procedure. Columbia Law Review, 78, 258–329.
28.
WaldoD. (2007). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of public administration. Transaction Publishers.
29.
WalkerC. J. (2014a). Chevron inside the regulatory state: An empirical assessment. Fordham Law Review, 83, 703–729.
30.
WalkerC. J. (2014b). The ordinary remand rule and the judicial toolbox for agency dialogue. George Washington Law Review, 82, 1553–1621.
31.
WoodD. (2012). When to hold, when to fold, when to reshuffle: The art of decision-making on a multi-member court. California Law Review, 100, 1445–1477.
