Abstract
Writing in lone dissent and airing a touch of disdain, Justice Scalia regarded the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Mead Corp., as "one of the most significant opinions ever rendered by the Court dealing with judicial review of administrative action.,, Mead's legacy, Scalia lamented, would be "enormous, and almost uniformly bad. Seven years later, Scalia's prediction is most evident in the judiciary's post-Mead re'view of informal agency adjudications. As discussed in this Note, informal adjudications playa dominant role in administrative actions (and in our every day lives as a result), yet the circuit courts have been inconsistent and unpredictable in their application of the Mead analysis, which relates to the level of deference federal circuits grant agency actipns, including informal adjudicative actions. Therefore, this Note suggests that the confusing test required by Mead should no longer apply in this area of the law.
Recommended Citation
Moore, Thomas
(2008)
"Abandoning Mead: Why Informal Adjudications Should Only Receive Minimal Deference in Federal Courts,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2008:
No.
2, Article 10.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2008/iss2/10