The first chapter presents the author's view of administrative law and the basic outline to be followed by the book. The author states that, in his view, analysis of judicial deference to agency action has followed a trichotomy model: adjudicatory fairness, politics, and scientific expertise. Analysis involves distinguishing these three paradigms and matching particular elements of an agency decision with an appropriate paradigm. A court will with determine the appropriate degree of deference based on whether the agency employed the right method of decision making or whether the method was properly executed (Edley, 1990, p. 3).
The author then states that to rely upon the trichotomy of decision making methods is to reincarnate the formalism of separation of powers, which was abandoned in the 1930s. Thus, the legal reasoning utilized by courts in administrative law cases looks back to the pre-New Deal judicial doctrines, ignoring the problems which supposedly led to the abandonment of these doctrines (Edley, 1990, p. 4).
The abandonment of separation of powers formalism was a response by the Supreme Court in the 1930s to the realization that a less rigid doctrine was needed to accommodate modern exigencies. The new approach focused upon the regularization of administrative processes, the presumptive availability of judicial review, and judicial deference to administrative expertise. The result has been sweeping administrative discretion, which is only partly addressed by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. The problem with empowering judges to take a stronger hand in overseeing administrative agencies is that the seeping discretion of the agencies may be replaced by the sweeping discretion of the judges. Ultimately, argues the author, the discretion-focused conception of administrative law should be abandoned (Edley, 1990, pp. 4-12).
In Chapter 2, the author describes the idea of a trichotomy of paradigmatic decis...