This article assesses where the Supreme Court stands on administrative law after the 2018 term, focusing on Kisor v. Wilkie and Department of Commerce v. New York. Over the last decade, the Roberts Court had demonstrated increasing concerns about an out-of-control federal bureaucracy at odds with the constitutional order, but hadn’t pulled back significantly on administrative governance in practice. The 2018 term provided the Court with a chance to put its might where its mouth was. Yet administrative law’s denouement did not come; established administrative law doctrines remain in force, albeit narrowed. The 2018 Term cases demonstrate that the Roberts Court is deeply divided on administrative law along clear ideological lines. The cases also illuminate several core analytic themes and tensions in the Roberts Court’s administrative law jurisprudence, in particular disagreements over: the relationship of law and policy; formalism and nonformalism; the role of history; and administrative common law versus Administrative Procedure Act originalism. Taking a further step back, two contrasting frames emerge from the Roberts Court’s 2018 term administrative law opinions. One is radical, with a categorical and uncompromising formalism, commitment to limited government and aggressive judicial review, insistently originalist stance, and rejection of contemporary judicial review doctrines as at odds with traditional understandings of judicial power and the meaning of the APA. The other is incrementalist and common law in character, encompassing justices with a broader range of views about constitutional structure and administrative government but united in their unwillingness to disrupt existing governance regimes, at least not all at once. Which of these analytic frames will ultimately prevail still remains an open question, but incrementalism was plainly the victor in the 2018 Term’s administrative law decisions. That is significant, but should also not obscure that there was unity across the Court in urging greater judicial scrutiny of administrative action. Moreover, despite invocations of the importance of bureaucratic expertise, these decisions share the concerns with unaccountable, aggrandized, and arbitrary administrative power that characterize the Roberts Court’s administrative jurisprudence more widely. Notably lacking is reference to the ways that the administrative state operates to constrain power, render it accountable, and advance individual liberty. Absent a more balanced view of the administrative state, the Roberts Court is unlikely to develop a coherent approach to administrative law.

中文翻译：

---

罗伯茨法院和行政法

本文评估了最高法院在 2018 年任期后对行政法的立场，重点关注 Kisor 诉 Wilkie 和商务部诉纽约案。在过去十年中，罗伯茨法院对失控的联邦官僚机构与宪法秩序相悖的担忧日益增加，但在实践中并未显着撤回行政治理。2018 年的任期为法院提供了一个大放异彩的机会。然而行政法的结局并没有到来；既定的行政法学说仍然有效，尽管范围缩小了。2018 年的 Term 案件表明，罗伯茨法院在行政法上存在明显的意识形态分歧。这些案例还阐明了罗伯茨法院行政法判例中的几个核心分析主题和紧张关系，尤其是在以下方面的分歧：法律与政策的关系；形式主义和非形式主义；历史的作用；行政普通法与行政程序法的原创性。再退一步，罗伯茨法院 2018 年任期的行政法意见中出现了两个截然不同的框架。一种是激进的，具有绝对和不妥协的形式主义，致力于有限的政府和积极的司法审查，坚持原创主义立场，拒绝当代司法审查学说，因为它与传统的司法权力理解和 APA 的含义不一致。另一个是渐进主义和普通法的性质，包括对宪法结构和行政管理有更广泛观点的法官，但他们团结一致，不愿破坏现有的治理制度，至少不是一次。这些分析框架中的哪一个最终会占上风仍然是一个悬而未决的问题，但渐进主义显然是 2018 年行政法决定的胜利者。这很重要，但也不应掩盖整个法院在敦促对行政行为进行更严格的司法审查方面的团结。此外，尽管援引了官僚专业知识的重要性，但这些决定与罗伯茨法院更广泛的行政法理学特征的不负责任的、强化的和任意的行政权力相同。明显缺乏的是行政国家如何运作以限制权力、使其承担责任和促进个人自由。如果没有更平衡的行政国家观点，罗伯茨法院不太可能对行政法制定一致的方法。