E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
My review of Dan Ernst's eye-opening Tocqueville's Nightmare: The Administrative State Emerges in America, 1900-1940 is now out in the Harvard Law Review, along with Mark Tushnet's illuminating response. The review argues that Ernst's book exemplifies two, somewhat related trends in the legal academy. The first trend is the strikingly historicist nature of recent attempts to defend the legitimacy of the modern administrative process from its libertarian and originalist critics. In addition to Ernst's own work, prominent examples include Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule's recent article, Libertarian Administrative Law, and Jerry Mashaw's Creating the Administrative Constitution. The second trend is the emergence of a new "legal history of administrative governance." This sub-field breaks with the currently dominant legal history of "social movements," as well as the study of American political development, by questioning not only the distinction between law and politics but also the distinction between state and society.
Tocqueville's Nightmarehighlights the empirical promise of the legal history of administrative governance, while revealing the relative weakness of historicist defenses of administrative legitimacy. This weakness, I argue, stems in large part from an empirical and normative misinterpretation: Ernst, Sunstein, Vermeule, and other historicists tend to treat evidence of the capture of the mid-century administrative state by politically moderate lawyers as testifying to a popular consensus on that state’s legitimacy. Mark responds that recourse to the "intellectual history of the administrative state" would temper my conclusion.