Article by Paul R. Verkuil
Vermont Yankee has quickly become a classic administrative law case. Few decisions have sparked such universal recognition among the practicing bar and academic community or produced such extensive commentary on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and its rulemaking provisions. Yet despite this impact, the case is surprisingly limited in its holding and persistently opaque in its implications. No matter how many times one reads the case, the Court's discussion of the appropriate standards for judicial review of rulemaking remains inadequate. The conclusion is inescapable that Vermont Yankee can live up to its reputation as a watershed decision only if it is followed by a second decision that resolves the complicated issue of the appropriate scope of review of informal rulemaking.
About the Author
Paul R. Verkuil. Dean and Professor of Law, Tulane Law School.
Citation
55 Tul. L. Rev. 418 (1981)