This book of essays celebrates Mark Aronson's contribution to administrative law. As joint author of the leading Australian text on judicial review of administrative action, Aronson's work is well-known to public lawyers throughout the common law world and this is reflected in the list of contributors from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The introduction comes from Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia. The essays reflect Aronson's interests in judicial review, non-judicial grievance mechanisms, problems of proof and evidence, and the boundaries of public and private law. Amongst the contributors, Peter Cane, Elizabeth Fisher, and Linda Pearson write on administrative adjudication and decision-making, Anita Stuhmcke writes on Ombudsmen, and Robin Creyke and John McMillan, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, write on charters, codes and 'soft law'. There are evaluations of the profound influence of human rights law on judicial review from the UK by Sir Jack Beatson and Thomas Poole and from Canada by David Mullan. Matthew Groves and Chief Justice James Spigelman address developing themes in judicial review, while Carol Harlow, Richard Rawlings, Michael Taggart and Janet McLean follow Aronson's interests into the private side of public law. An American perspective is added by Alfred Aman and Jack Beermann.

This book presents the evolution of Italian administrative law in the context of the EU, describing its distinctive features and comparing it with other experiences across Europe. It provides a comprehensive overview of administrative law in Italy, focusing on the main changes occurred over the last few decades.Although the respective chapters generally pursue a legal approach, they also consider the influence of economic, social, cultural and technological factors on the evolution of public administration and administrative law.The book is divided into three parts. The first part addresses general issues (e.g. procedures and organization of public administrations, administrative justice). The second part focuses on more specific topics (e.g. public intervention in the economy, healthcare management, local government). In the third part, the evolution of Italian administrative law is discussed in a comparative perspective.

“Hamburger argues persuasively that America has overlaid its constitutional system with a form of governance that is both alien and dangerous.” —Law and Politics Book Review While the federal government traditionally could constrain liberty only through acts of Congress and the courts, the executive branch has increasingly come to control Americans through its own administrative rules and adjudication, thus raising disturbing questions about the effect of this sort of state power on American government and society. With Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Philip Hamburger answers this question in the affirmative, offering a revisionist account of administrative law. Rather than accepting it as a novel power necessitated by modern society, he locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative. Then he traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the US Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the US Constitution—and constitutions in general—were designed to prevent. With a clear yet many-layered argument that draws on history, law, and legal thought, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? reveals administrative law to be not a benign, natural outgrowth of contemporary government but a pernicious—and profoundly unlawful—return to dangerous pre-constitutional absolutism.

From two legal luminaries, a highly original framework for restoring confidence in a government bureaucracy increasingly derided as “the deep state.” Is the modern administrative state illegitimate? Unconstitutional? Unaccountable? Dangerous? Intolerable? American public law has long been riven by a persistent, serious conflict, a kind of low-grade cold war, over these questions. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that the administrative state can be redeemed, as long as public officials are constrained by what they call the morality of administrative law. Law and Leviathan elaborates a number of principles that underlie this moral regime. Officials who respect that morality never fail to make rules in the first place. They ensure transparency, so that people are made aware of the rules with which they must comply. They never abuse retroactivity, so that people can rely on current rules, which are not under constant threat of change. They make rules that are understandable and avoid issuing rules that contradict each other. These principles may seem simple, but they have a great deal of power. Already, without explicit enunciation, they limit the activities of administrative agencies every day. But we can aspire for better. In more robust form, these principles could address many of the concerns that have critics of the administrative state mourning what they see as the demise of the rule of law. The bureaucratic Leviathan may be an inescapable reality of complex modern democracies, but Sunstein and Vermeule show how we can at last make peace between those who accept its necessity and those who yearn for its downfall.

State and Federal Administrative Law, Second Edition, contains thorough, up-to-date coverage of administrative law issues in both federal and state contexts. Although the book can be used for a course that focuses primarily on federal law, its dual coverage allows an instructor to highlight the insights that can emerge from a comparison between federal and state approaches to the same issues. The book exposes students to a broad sample of the federal, state, and local administrative agencies that they will encounter in their professional lives. The book also contains many short, concrete problems that enable instructors to make use of the problem method.

"This volume is a collection of the papers presented at the first ('kick-off') meeting in ... Dornburg, near Jena (Germany), 26-28 May 2005."--Foreword.

Ronald Dworkin once imagined law as an empire and judges as its princes. But over time, the arc of law has bent steadily toward deference to the administrative state. Adrian Vermeule argues that law has freely abandoned its imperial pretensions, and has done so for internal legal reasons. In area after area, judges and lawyers, working out the logical implications of legal principles, have come to believe that administrators should be granted broad leeway to set policy, determine facts, interpret ambiguous statutes, and even define the boundaries of their own jurisdiction. Agencies have greater democratic legitimacy and technical competence to confront many issues than lawyers and judges do. And as the questions confronting the state involving climate change, terrorism, and biotechnology (to name a few) have become ever more complex, legal logic increasingly indicates that abnegation is the wisest course of action. As Law’s Abnegation makes clear, the state did not shove law out of the way. The judiciary voluntarily relegated itself to the margins of power. The last and greatest triumph of legalism was to depose itself.