Document Type

Article

Publication Title

University of Pennsylvania Law Review

Abstract

The central purpose of this Article is to analyze the desirability of vesting the review of administrative action in specialized courts, and to assess the relative merits of different types of specialized courts. Part I presents the central arguments raised in favor of specialized courts. Part II discusses the varieties of specialized courts (courts currently in place, courts that once existed and were subsequently abolished, and various proposals), and sets forth a method by which to categorize such courts. In general, the academic literature has not paid proper attention to the different structures of specialized courts. As a result of these differences, arguments for and against specialized courts need to be tailored more carefully to the type of specialized court being analyzed. Part III analyzes a model of congressional delegation to administrative agencies. It seeks to ascertain how the replacement of generalist review with specialized review affects the interaction between Congress and agencies. Part IV discusses the impact of specialized courts on the judicial system. It studies their effect both on dialogue among the various actors in the system and on the coherence of federal law. Part V explains why, in the context of judicial review of administrative action, there should be a presumption against establishing specialized courts to replace the functions of the regional, generalist courts of appeals. The arguments that counsel against specialization in this context, however, do not apply to specialized courts that are subject to review by the generalist courts of appeals. This Part discusses how many of the asserted benefits of specialization can be attained by such courts.

First Page

1111

DOI

https://doi.org/10.2307/3312246

Volume

138

Publication Date

1990

Download

Share

COinS