Presidential signing statements are creeping into judicial opinions with increasing frequency, leading to a resurgence of interest in the issue and several attempts, by Congress and others, to limit the use of signing statements or to challenge their constitutionality. This Note contends that the paramount separation of powers concern raised by signing statements is the conference of legislative power in the hands of the President through judicial consideration of signing statements in interpreting statutes. By analogizing signing statements to agency interpretations, this Note proposes the use of the Chevron framework as an analytical tool to guide courts in evaluating signing statements. Such use of the Chevron framework is consistent with the doctrine’s underlying rationales and works to minimize subjectivity in judicial analysis through Chevron’s requirements of statutory ambiguity and interpretive reason.
Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte
EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit. Although the case presented many serious [...]
Revisiting Water Bankruptcy
REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]
Defying Auer Deference
DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]