The Lost English Roots of Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking

134 Yale L.J. 1955 (2025)

83 Pages Posted: 8 May 2025

See all articles by Rephael Stern

Rephael Stern

Harvard University - Harvard Law School; Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Date Written: May 07, 2025

Abstract

Notice-and-comment rulemaking is arguably the most important procedure in the modern administrative state. Influential accounts even frame it as the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act's "most important idea." But its historical origins are obscure. Scholars have variously suggested that it grew out of the constitutionally sanctioned practice of congressional petitioning, organically developed from the practices of nineteenth-century agencies, or was influenced by German conceptions of administrative rulemaking. 

These histories, however, are incomplete. Using original archival research, this Article demonstrates that notice-and-comment rulemaking was the product of a series of American transplantations of English rulemaking procedures that developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the New Deal Era, influential American reformers tracked important developments in English rulemaking as they grappled with the rapidly changing American legal ecosystem. Yet, as this Article emphasizes, Americans only partially adopted the English procedural framework. While they transplanted the "notice" and "comment" dimensions of English procedure, the Americans ultimately decided not to import a legislative veto, which was a critical part of rulemaking procedures in England. 

By offering a revisionist account of the origins of notice-and-comment rulemaking, this Article makes two contributions. First, it takes an initial step toward recovering a largely forgotten world of Anglo-American administrative law. Second, it illuminates current debates about the legitimacy of notice-and-comment rulemaking. With many current critiques of notice-and-comment rulemaking centering on the procedure's supposed lack of democratic accountability, the history this Article traces pushes us to ask whether belatedly transplanting an English-style legislative veto would legitimate the procedure.

Keywords: legal history, administrative law, constitutional law, comparative law, transnational law, Anglo-American law, legal transplantations, notice-and-comment rulemaking, Administrative Procedure Act, delegated legislation, legislative veto

Suggested Citation

Stern, Rephael, The Lost English Roots of Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking (May 07, 2025). 134 Yale L.J. 1955 (2025), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5245723 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5245723

Rephael Stern (Contact Author)

Harvard University - Harvard Law School ( email )

1563 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences ( email )

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
212
Abstract Views
304
Rank
314,161
PlumX Metrics