The Ordinary Remand Rule and the Judicial Toolbox for Agency Dialogue

Christopher J. Walker

Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law

March 12, 2014

George Washington Law Review, Summer 2014, Forthcoming
Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 199

When a court concludes that an agency’s decision is erroneous, the ordinary rule is to remand to the agency to consider the issue anew (as opposed to the court deciding the issue itself). Despite that the Supreme Court first articulated this ordinary remand rule in the 1940s and has rearticulated it repeatedly over the years, little work has been done to understand how the rule works in practice, much less whether it promotes the separation-of-powers values that motivate the rule. This Article is the first to conduct such an investigation — focusing on judicial review of agency immigration adjudications and reviewing the over 400 published court of appeals decisions that have addressed the remand rule since the Court rearticulated it in 2002.

The Article finds that courts generally fail to appreciate the dual separation-of-powers values of Article I legislative and Article II executive authority at issue and that some circuits have not been faithful to this command. Courts that refuse to remand seem do so when they believe the petitioner is entitled to relief and remand would unduly delay or, worse, preclude relief because the petitioner would get lost in the process. In refusing to remand, courts express perceived Article III concerns of abdicating their authority to say what the law is and to ensure that procedures are fair and rights are protected in the administrative process. In reviewing the cases, however, this Article uncovers a novel set of tools that courts have developed to preserve their role in the process and enhance the court-agency dialogue. Instead of ignoring the remand rule, this Article suggests that courts utilize and further develop this dialogue-enhancing toolbox to exercise their constitutional authority while preserving the delicate balance of powers between courts and agencies via the ordinary remand rule.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 56

Keywords: administrative law, separation of powers, dialogue, deference, Ventura ordinary remand rule

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: April 2, 2013 ; Last revised: March 13, 2014

Suggested Citation

Walker, Christopher J., The Ordinary Remand Rule and the Judicial Toolbox for Agency Dialogue (March 12, 2014). George Washington Law Review, Summer 2014, Forthcoming; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 199. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2242869

Contact Information

Christopher Jay Walker (Contact Author)
Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law ( email )
55 West 12th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
United States
614-292-2631 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/professor/christopher-j-walker/
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 614
Downloads: 189
Download Rank: 94,273
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. How To Win the Deference Lottery
By Christopher Walker

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.469 seconds