Exploring Regleprudence at OIRA

From: L’Osservatorio AIR

Review by Gianluca Sgueo

Davidson N.M. and E. J. Leib, 2015. Regleprudence – at OIRA and Beyond, The Georgetown Law Journal, 103:259-315.

“Regleprudence”, as understood by Nestor M. Davidson and Ethan J. Leib, is a new category of analysis in administrative law. Regleprudence is differentiated from both “jusriprudence” – the analysis of the decisions that are taken by courts and tribunals – and “legisprudence” – a concept used by legal scholars to emphasize the role that statutes (as well as judicial review) play as a source of legal authority. In the opinion of the authors, regleprudence may be beneficial for the scope of enriching scholarly perspective on administrative law. Being regleprudence aimed at including the lawmaking of the Executive Branch among the sources of administrative law, in spite of the fact that this law is not subject to judicial review most of the time, it would allow to focus on concerns of legality that ought to structure administrative action in the absence of judicial oversight. Regleprudence, in other words, offers an alternative way of exploring administrative law.

As a case study to illustrate how regleprudence works, the article examines the activity of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) nestled with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that oversees United States federal regulatory activity. The case of OIRA is considered of importance by the authors because it exemplifies the case of an administrative body which decides on a variety of legal questions that have coercive impact on citizens’ daily lives, e.g. proper parameters for cost-benefit analysis and notice-and-comment requirements.

Read Complete Review

Leave a Reply

Name not required for anonymous comments. Email is optional and will not be published.

Please Answer: *