Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List 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 Rahman sabeel.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 Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Judicial deference to administrative action: the Brazilian experience
|
Friday, September 29, 2023
Judicial deference to administrative action: the Brazilian experience
Guest Blogger
For the Balkinization Symposium on The Chevron Doctrine through the Lens of Comparative Law Carlos Ari Sundfeld & Yasser Gabriel The argument that public administrators have discretionary powers in several cases, including in technical matters and regarding aspects of convenience and opportunity, still prevails today in the legal literature. As a result, it is understood that judicial control of administrative acts must focus only on the requirements established by law as bound and invariable to its production (such as the form of the act, the administrative process for its publication and the administrative authority legitimated to decide). These ideas are summarized in the widely accepted notion, commonplace in Brazil, that the Judiciary is responsible for assessing the legality of administrative acts, not their merit. It is true that, from the 1940s onwards, little by little, and inspired by French jurisprudence, judicial control of discretionary acts was also accepted, but as an exception, in situations of flagrant incompatibility with public purposes. And, in more recent decades, the idea of controlling the act’s reasonableness and proportionality have been used for the same purpose and in exceptional situations. But, as a rule, administrative acts are always presumed valid on account of the independence of the Powers. This, in theory, imposes a heavy burden of demonstration on the judge who intends to find misuse of power, lack of reasonableness, or disproportionality in an administrative act. Therefore, although the term deference is not commonly used, its fundamental premise — respect, by the Judiciary, for administrative action, when in compliance with legislation — resonates strongly in the theoretical bases of our administrative law. It is true, however, that, following the re-democratization of Brazil and the publication of the 1988 Constitution, there has been increased litigation in matters linked to the exercise of administrative functions. At the same time, judges have shown a greater willingness to make interventions, without the same concern for respecting the independence of public administrations and without the same acceptance of ideas in legal literature about the limits of judicial intervention. Still, this trend does not seem to be so ample, focusing mainly on situations involving the expansion of social protections or benefits. The explanation for this has to do with the very particular characteristics of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution: on the one hand, it includes many open-ended norms dealing with the protection of individual rights, inclusion, and correction of social inequalities; and, on the other, the broad opening, by the Constitution, of judicial means for making such norms effective. Due to these characteristics, when considering the recognition or imposition of public obligations in the face of constitutionally based social rights, the Judiciary has tended to be less deferential to administrative action than is other areas of public law. These are decisions that, for example, have forced public administrations to provide medical treatments not covered by the public health system or to grant social security benefits not expressly provided for by law. An article published in 2021 indicates that, between 2010 and 2018, the federal administration spent R$ 8.5 billion (approximately US$ 1.7 billion) purchasing medications under court order, the equivalent of around 10% of the pharmaceutical assistance budget in the period. Most of these sums were allocated to the purchase of a limited number of high-cost medicines not provided by the public health system. Regarding social security benefits, research published in 2020 presents impressive data: at least 11% of benefits granted by the National Social Security Institute (INSS) result from court orders. There are many questions regarding the granting of sickness benefits, a topic that involves both discussions about the validity and scope of medical examinations carried out by the INSS, as well as a divergence between the public administration and the Judiciary over the legal concept of “invalidity” and what it includes. The characteristics that the Brazilian legal system has assumed in the last 35 years, therefore, have come to partially compromise the discourse of judicial respect for an administrative act’s merit — for the discretion, including technical, of public administrators. This is a direct result of the constitutionalization, through open norms, of a series of social rights, such as rights to health, education and a balanced environment, without, however, further specifications regarding the content and extent of these rights. Normative incompleteness or uncertainty, combined with the strengthening of the Judiciary as guardian of constitutionality, has led to judicial control that is not very deferential to the administration in matters of social rights. This complexity of the Brazilian legal system has increased the gap between the reality of the courts and the theoretical discourse traditionally used to draw limits to judicial control over public administrations. The Judiciary has shown itself comfortable carrying out this type of intervention, which generates consequences such as different treatment for similar cases (people who can access the Judiciary tend to be in a more advantageous position compared to those who cannot — and the court decisions benefit the individual claimant but do not always require an overall change in policy); delays in the implementation of public policies (due to court decisions that require reformulations of the original plans of public administrations) and increase or reconfiguration of public spending (due to the creation of new obligations). However, it is important to note that the trend towards greater judicial interventionism does not appear to be general. In situations involving the imposition of conditions or restrictions on individual actions by public administrations — regarding environmental or sanitary concerns, for example — the predominant stance of the Judiciary is still one of (de facto) deference to administrative decisions. The phenomenon has attracted a lot of attention from academia. In the last two decades, there has been much research dedicated to understanding judicial intervention in public management. Also, academic exchange programs of students on postgraduate courses studying important topics for administrative law from the perspective of comparative law have become common. North American institutions tend to be a recurring destination for these students. In these programs, connections between the Chevron doctrine and Brazilian law have emerged, reinforcing traditional notions regarding the limits of judicial control. Relevant works by Brazilian former students who attended institutions such as Yale and Harvard explored the Chevron case and highlighted lessons that could be used in the Brazilian experience — such as the work of Eduardo Jordão. The term deference even started to be used with some familiarity in the Brazilian debate. As a result, in recent years, the Chevron doctrine has become well known to Brazilian administrative law and has already had some repercussions in decisions of the Supreme Court, precisely in cases outside the realm of public assistance of a social nature. In 2018, in a case involving a restriction on the sale of cigarettes with additives imposed by a regulatory agency based on an interpretation of a federal law, the Supreme Court, although in a divided vote, ended up maintaining the administrative regulation questioned. In the debates, there was express reference to the Chevron doctrine. Some justices defended the idea that, if there is ambiguity in the law in relation to a certain topic, the Court should decide whether, by accommodating opposing interests, the solution adopted by the agency was based on a reasonable interpretation of the law and compatible with the Federal Constitution. In the following year, 2019, the Supreme Court again resorted to Chevron, this time in a case that concerned an act carried out by the administrative authority responsible for competitiveness protection, which was maintained by the Judiciary. Not only did the Court use the assumptions of deference outlined in the Chevron doctrine, but it stated that, compared to the Judiciary, the public administration had greater capacity to evaluate factual and economic elements relevant to the regulation in question. At the current moment, in Brazil, the feeling is that, after having partially exceeded its old limits, the model of judicial control of public administration is seeking a new point of balance. The general assumption of the idea of judicial deference towards administrations do not exactly appear to be in crisis. What did experience a crisis was the traditional passivity in face of social inequalities. The question is whether judges would be able to prompt the state to correct inequalities such as these or, considering all cases, perhaps they mostly end up increasing confusion or benefiting the wrong people. So far, the answer is unclear. Carlos Ari Sundfeld - Professor at FGV São Paulo Law School (carlos.sundfeld@fgv.br) Yasser Gabriel - Professor at FGV São Paulo Law School (yasser.gabriel@fgv.br)
Posted 9:30 AM by Guest Blogger [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |