Administrative Law. Judicial Review. Court of Appeals Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Discretionary Order Denying Suspension of Deportation Order under Section 106 of Immigration and Nationality Act

1963 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 592 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-652
Author(s):  
Robin Creyke

Courts and tribunals have distinct roles within the Australian administrative law system at the federal level, and to a lesser extent, in the states and territories. Questions of law are for the courts, and questions of fact are for the executive and tribunals. From time to time this orthodoxy is questioned. Suggestions are made that the courts are increasingly tending to intrude into the province of tribunals. Using cases as illustrations, this article explores five relevant jurisdictional areas —from appeals on a question of law to deference under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 10(2)(b)(ii)—to test the accuracy of the suggestion.


2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danwood Mzikenge Chirwa

AbstractThe 1994 Malawian Constitution is unique in that it, among other things, recognizes administrative justice as a fundamental right and articulates the notion of constitutional supremacy. This right and the idea of constitutional supremacy have important implications for Malawi's administrative law, which was hitherto based on the common law inherited from Britain. This article highlights the difficulties that Malawian courts have faced in reconciling the right to administrative justice as protected under the new constitution with the common law. In doing so, it offers some insights into what the constitutionalization of administrative justice means for Malawian administrative law. It is argued that the constitution has altered the basis and grounds for judicial review so fundamentally that the Malawian legal system's marriage to the English common law can be regarded as having irretrievably broken down as far as administrative law is concerned.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann

US administrative law forms a body of law that is considered to be particularly ‘political’. From an early stage on, US administrative law has endeavoured to provide instruments and procedures that foster and implement democratic ideals and concepts; consequently, US ‘freedom of information’ and the standards of public participation in the rulemaking process have often served as a model for foreign administrative law systems. Nevertheless, the agency actions have constantly been questioned and disputed. This book offers a systematic analysis of the constitutional foundations as well as the procedures, of liability and judicial review in administrative matters, and it examines the legitimacy of the American ‘administrative state’.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane

This Foreword introduces a Fordham Law Review symposium held in March 2014 to mark the thirtieth anniversary of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. One of the most-cited administrative-law decisions of all time, Chevron has sparked thirty years of scholarly discussion concerning what Chevron deference means, when (or even if) it should apply, and what impact it has had on the administrative state. Part I of the Foreword discusses the symposium contributions that address Chevron’s scope and application, especially in light of City of Arlington v. FCC. Part II introduces the contributions that explore empirically and theoretically Chevron’s impact outside of the judicial-review context -- i.e., its effect on legislative- and administrative-drafting theory and practice, its influence within the regulatory state more generally, and its adoption (or lack thereof) in state administrative law. Part III turns to the intersection of Chevron and federalism. Part IV concludes by grappling with the contributors’ diverse views on whether Chevron is indeed a big deal and, if so, whether it is a good or bad deal for the modern administrative state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document