Administrative Remedies – Détails, épisodes et analyse

Détails du podcast

Informations techniques et générales issues du flux RSS du podcast.

Administrative Remedies

Gwendolyn Savitz and Marc Roark

Gouvernement

Éducation

Fréquence : 1 épisode/11j. Total Éps: 39

Because you can't fix what you don't understand.

The rules governing your daily life - from the medications you take to the air you breathe, from workplace safety to financial regulation - weren't made by Congress. They were made by federal agencies operating under delegated authority. And there's an entire body of law governing how that power works, when it can be challenged, and what happens when it goes wrong.

Administrative Remedies explains that law. Professor Gwendolyn Savitz and Dean Marc Roark of the University of Tulsa College of Law break down the doctrines behind the headlines - Chevron, the major questions doctrine, Jarkesy, due process, agency enforcement - using real-world analogies and current Supreme Court cases.

For law students, practitioners, and anyone who wants the administrative state to actually make sense.

New episodes weekly.

Lire plusRéduire

Site

RSS

Apple

Données mises à jour le 11/09/2026

Classements récents

Dernières positions dans les classements Apple Podcasts et Spotify.

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Aucun classement récent disponible

Liens partagés entre épisodes et podcasts

Liens présents dans les descriptions d'épisodes et autres podcasts les utilisant également.

https://open.spotify.com/show/2NBW38yGfFvvgVUj6r6jLM?si=109b53ec7fbd44ae
3 partages

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/administrative-remedies/id1850066965
3 partages

http://remediespodcast.com
3 partages

Qualité et score du flux RSS

Évaluation technique de la qualité et de la structure du flux RSS.

Qualité du flux RSS

À améliorer

Score global : 68%

Historique des publications

Répartition mensuelle des publications d'épisodes au fil des années.

Year

Derniers épisodes publiés

Liste des épisodes récents, avec titres, durées et descriptions.

So Many Cases Die at the Door: What Judicial Review Actually Is

Saison 3

mardi 8 septembre 2026 • Durée 35:10

Loper Bright Enterprises sued the Secretary of Commerce, and the case had no trial, no depositions, and no discovery. It was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment, on a record the agency finished building before anyone filed a complaint. That's not an anomaly — that's what challenging agency action looks like. And the herring fishermen were lucky in a way most challengers aren't: they got a court to answer the question they came to ask.

Season Three opens by taking apart the picture everyone carries around — agency acts, you object, a judge takes a look and fixes it or doesn't. Error correction. Gwen and Marc walk through why that description is true often enough to be believable and wrong often enough to matter. Underneath it sits a set of doctrines that decide whether the error is ever reached at all: standing, finality, ripeness, exhaustion, mootness, and the categories courts have placed outside review entirely. None of them asks whether the agency was wrong.

We read 5 U.S.C. § 706 closely — Congress wrote the grounds. Congress did not write the intensity, and the intensity is where the cases are decided. Section 706 read identically the morning Chevron came down and the morning it was overruled.

Also in this episode: why Bennett v. Spear gave three statutory words their content and why agency lawyers draft against it; the asymmetry that makes standing easy for a regulated company and hard for the person downwind; Patel v. Garland and how far a jurisdiction-stripping statute reaches; and where Gwen and Marc disagree about whether any of this is construction or something more deliberate. Plus Sackett, Lucia, and Jarkesy — courts opening doors, not closing them — and what distinguishes the cases that get in.

Next week: executive orders, and why the choice between signing one and routing a policy through an agency determines which body of law ever gets to test it.

Lire plusRéduire

Mullin v. Doe: When Courts Can't Look

Saison 3

mardi 7 juillet 2026 • Durée 26:27

Fritz Miot has lived in California for fifteen years under Temporary Protected Status, working in an Alzheimer's research lab while managing a diabetes diagnosis that Haiti's collapsed healthcare system can't treat. On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court told him a federal court isn't allowed to ask whether the government even followed its own rules before ending his status — not whether he loses on the merits, but whether anyone can look at all.

In the second half of our emergency two-part season opener, Gwen and Marc dig into Mullin v. Doe: how "no judicial review of any determination" swallowed a mandatory consultation requirement, why the State Department told DHS one thing and the public another, and what Justice Thomas's solo concurrence is quietly setting up for a future case. Slaughter closed the check inside the agency. Mullin closes the one outside it.

Lire plusRéduire

Trump v. Slaughter: The End of the Independent Agency

Saison 3

jeudi 2 juillet 2026 • Durée 35:43

For ninety years, Congress could build federal agencies designed to operate at arm's length from the president. Bipartisan commissions, staggered terms, for-cause removal — a whole architecture of institutional independence protected by Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). On June 29, 2026, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overruled Humphrey's by name and said it had been wrong the day it was decided. Rebecca Slaughter, the FTC commissioner Donald Trump fired in March 2025 for reasons that had nothing to do with her job performance, loses her case. So does the general category of "independent agency" as a distinct constitutional structure.

In this episode, we walk through what Trump v. Slaughter actually held, why the Court's reasoning goes wider than its holding, and what happens next. We cover the "Decision of 1789" the majority uses as its historical anchor and Justice Sotomayor's response. We examine the stare decisis fight — seven prior Supreme Court cases had blessed the Humphrey's structure by name, including recent decisions the Court had just handed down. We explain the companion case, Trump v. Cook, decided the same morning, which saved the Federal Reserve on historical grounds while everyone else lost the same protection. And we get into the part the majority didn't quite say out loud: the opinion carefully carves out the Fed and Article I courts, but not administrative law judges. What that silence means for the MSPB, for ALJ tenure protection, and for every federal adjudication system in the country is the question the next Supreme Court term will start to answer.

Justice Gorsuch's concurrence lays out what he calls the "ratchet effect" — Congress delegated enormous power to agencies on the premise that those agencies would be independent, and that premise is now gone. What Congress thought it bargained for is not what Congress got. Justice Barrett's dissent in Cook asks how history can support both a categorical rule ending independence everywhere and a carveout preserving it at one institution. The Court, she notes, does not say.

Read the full explainer at remediespodcast.com/learn-trump-v-slaughter-explained.

No Right to a Lawyer: Asylum from Inside Detention

Saison 2 · Épisode 17

mardi 9 juin 2026 • Durée 25:08

A visitation room in a private detention facility in rural Louisiana. Cinderblock walls, fluorescent lights, two plastic chairs bolted to the floor. Elena is on one side. A lawyer who drove three hours from New Orleans is on the other. They have ninety minutes. Elena has eight months until the hearing that decides whether she gets asylum or gets sent back to Honduras. The evidence she needs to prove her case is in a town she can't safely call into, held by family members who might be at risk just from gathering it.

In the second part of their immigration deep dive — and the final episode of Season 2 — Gwen and Marc move from the machinery to the person standing inside it:

Why representation matters more in immigration than anywhere else in the federal system — represented asylum seekers win at several times the rate of unrepresented ones, and unrepresented detained respondents face denial rates around ninety percent
The Sixth Amendment gap: immigration removal is classified as civil, not criminal, so there's no right to appointed counsel. If you can't find a lawyer and the pro bono organizations are full, you represent yourself against a trained government attorney through an interpreter
How detention structurally degrades the case before the hearing happens — bond decided in a ten-minute video proceeding, evidence that can't be gathered from inside a facility, and the same docket clock running whether you're preparing from a lawyer's office or a monitored phone booth
The constitutional floor that most people assume exists and doesn't: plenary power from the 1889 Chinese Exclusion Case, Thuraissigiam's holding that someone apprehended twenty-five yards inside the border has essentially no due process right to judicial review, and a 2025 executive order testing whether that logic extends to anyone anywhere in the country who can't prove two years of presence
Why you don't have to disagree with the doctrine to be troubled by the outcomes — strict or generous, the law is supposed to apply the same way to the same facts, and the data says it doesn't

Next season: judicial review. What happens when this finally gets to court — and why it's not the rescue mechanism people imagine.

700 Judges, 3.2 Million Cases: The System That Decides Asylum Cases

Saison 2 · Épisode 16

mardi 2 juin 2026 • Durée 26:34

Two asylum seekers cross the southern border six months apart. Same country, same persecution, same statute. A clerk neither of them has ever met routes one to the regular docket and the other to an expedited docket. One gets heard in eight months. The other is waiting until 2028. That single routing decision is now six years of difference.

In the first of a two-part deep dive on immigration adjudication, Gwen and Marc walk through the system that will decide both of their cases:

3.2 million pending cases, 2.3 million of them asylum, divided among roughly 700 immigration judges — about 3,200 cases per judge, each requiring hours of fact-intensive testimony through interpreters about events in another country
The particular social group doctrine — the single most contested category in asylum law, which has flipped four times in eleven years through Attorney General certification. Same statute, same words, opposite results depending on who holds the office when your case is heard
How the AG cleared 767,000 cases in 2025 — the highest single-year total in the system's history — through a mix of procedural exits, compressed dockets, and doctrinal changes that foreclosed categories of claims that were viable when applicants filed
The MSPB decision that stripped immigration judges of civil service protections, holding they're inferior officers removable at will — meaning the judge deciding whether to grant asylum on a borderline theory now knows she can be fired tomorrow with no notice and no appeal
The denial rate climbing from roughly fifty percent in 2023 to eighty percent in February 2026, without a single statutory change

Rosa's hearing is in 2028. She'll argue a social group theory the Attorney General has already foreclosed, with six-year-old evidence about a country she fled six years ago, in front of a judge who can be removed at will. The statute hasn't changed. Everything else has.

Next episode: the person standing inside the machinery — detention, representation, expedited removal, and why the Constitution doesn't fix any of it.

Lire plus

The Framework That Decides Disability

Saison 2 · Épisode 15

mardi 26 mai 2026 • Durée 31:14

Until June 2024, the Social Security Administration was denying disability claims on the grounds that applicants could work as pneumatic tube operators — a job that functionally disappeared decades ago. The agency's catalog of occupations hadn't been updated since 1991. Congress noticed. Courts complained. The agency issued two emergency messages. The fix removed 114 jobs nobody was citing anyway and added a documentation requirement to 13 jobs people were. The vocational expert who cited pneumatic tube operator last year can cite it again next year, as long as they say an extra sentence.

That catalog isn't the problem. It's the symptom. In this episode, Gwen and Marc walk through what Social Security disability adjudication actually looks like when you run it two and a half million times a year:

The five-step sequential evaluation that decides every claim — substantial gainful activity, severity, the listings, past work, and the step five question that wins or loses most cases: is there any other job in the national economy you could do?
The grids — literal rows and columns where you plug in age, education, work history, and RFC, and the table tells you whether you're disabled. The Supreme Court blessed this trade in Heckler v. Campbell: uniformity over individualized judgment, explicitly because the alternative would "hinder needlessly an already overburdened agency"
The age cliff: at fifty-four, the grids say not disabled. At fifty-five, same medical condition, same RFC, same education, same work history — disabled. The borderline rule that's supposed to soften this treats five months as too far away
How every structural feature from the trilogy — the forty-six point judge-level variation, the weak internal review, the ex ante control mechanisms — runs through the credibility finding and the RFC, which determine where you land on the grids
The Matthews problem at scale: the test counts administrative burden as a factor, and at two and a half million applications a year, that factor dominates the math. There's no doctrinal floor on how thin process can get once the system is big enough

People die waiting for hearings. The GAO and Social Security's own inspector general have documented it. At a nine-month average wait — an improvement from the fifteen months it was running in 2023 — that number is meaningful every year. That's not the system failing. That's the system working as designed, at volume.

Nobody Said Deny More Cases: How Agency Preferences Reach the Hearing Room

Saison 2 · Épisode 14

mardi 19 mai 2026 • Durée 28:22

In the final episode of a three-part series on how agencies actually produce outcomes, Gwen and Marc trace the mechanisms that did the work — all of them upstream of the hearing room and mostly invisible from outside:

Case completion targets that measure speed but not thoroughness — and a Seventh Circuit concurrence warning that even well-intentioned production pressure "can alter the essential function of adjudication"
Quality review rubrics that aren't published, shift with administrations, and can't be appealed — but feed into performance evaluations that have real career consequences
Social Security Rulings that describe themselves as not having "the force and effect of law" and in the same sentence say they are "binding on all components" — binding policy issued without notice and comment
The 1984 case that saw it coming: Association of Administrative Law Judges v. Heckler, where the court found outcome-based targeting of ALJs "violated the spirit of the APA, if no specific provision thereof"
Immigration as the amplified version: 700-case-per-year quotas for judges without APA independence protections, deciding cases where the stakes are deportation

Somewhere out there is a claimant with the same diagnosis as someone approved three years ago by the same ALJ in the same office. That claimant gets denied — not because the case changed, but because the system around the judge changed. And nobody outside the agency can see why.

Lire plusRéduire

The Review Layer Doesn't Fix It — Three Things Agency Review Does Instead

Saison 2 · Épisode 13

mardi 12 mai 2026 • Durée 33:55

In 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reached into a single immigration case, certified it to himself, and overruled the precedent that had let domestic violence survivors qualify for asylum. In 2021, Garland certified it back. In 2025, Bondy certified it away again. Three reversals on the same doctrine in seven years — no statute changed, no rulemaking happened. One signature each time.

In this episode — the second in a three-part series on how agencies actually produce outcomes — Gwen and Marc move up a level from the hearing room and ask whether internal appellate review fixes the variation E13 documented. The textbook answer is yes: that's what review is for. The real answer is that "internal review" describes three very different machines, and none is primarily in the business of producing consistency.

The APA baseline is permissive. 5 USC 557 gives the reviewing body "all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision" — including the power to redo credibility findings from a cold transcript. The ALJ who sat three feet from the witness gets reversed; the federal court then defers to the agency under substantial evidence review. The one person who actually saw the testimony is the one whose findings get displaced.
Three agencies, three pullbacks. Social Security walks the default back via 20 CFR 404.970 — the Appeals Council acts only on legal error or want of substantial evidence. Immigration walks it back furthest via 8 CFR 1003.1 — IJ fact findings get clear-error review. The SEC operates closest to the default, where "all the powers" actually bites.
Model 1 — Social Security: review mostly doesn't happen. The Appeals Council grants review in roughly 15-20% of cases. The rest get a one-paragraph denial. That denial opens the 60-day window to federal court, but reads to a lay claimant like a final rejection — because in ordinary English "denied" means you lost, while in admin-law English it means you've exhausted and the clock is running. Represented claimants know this. Unrepresented claimants miss the window and lose by default.
Model 2 — Immigration: review is a policy instrument. The BIA designates decisions as precedential, binding every IJ in the country. Under 8 CFR 1003.1(h), the Attorney General can pull any case — pending or decided — and write a precedential opinion on it. Matter of A-R-C-G (2014), Matter of A-B- (2018), Garland's vacatur (2021), Matter of S-F-M (2025): the same doctrine swung four times across four administrations through a single referral mechanism. That isn't error correction. It's substantive policymaking through the review channel.

The Forty-Six Point Spread: Why Your Outcome Depends on Who You Get, Who Represents You, and Where You Live

Saison 2 · Épisode 12

mardi 5 mai 2026 • Durée 26:38

A 2017 GAO study found that Social Security disability outcomes could swing by forty-six percentage points based solely on which ALJ heard the case. Same claimant, same record, same hearing office, different judge. Individual ALJ approval rates range from under ten percent to over ninety. That's not noise — it's the system.

In this episode — the first of a three-part series on how agencies actually produce outcomes — Gwen and Marc step outside the hearing room and examine the three variables that shape results before a single question gets asked:

Judge assignment: Random allocation protects against selective routing, but paired with forty-six points of variation, it produces something that looks like a lottery. The system chose neutrality over consistency — and consistency doesn't get recovered downstream.
Representation: Claimants with attorneys get roughly double the approval rate of those without — not mainly because of what happens in the hearing, but because of record-building beforehand and something more structural: since ALJ decisions aren't published, the only way to know how a specific judge handles specific issues is to have appeared in front of them. Experienced local attorneys hold what amounts to privatized law — accumulated operational knowledge that doesn't exist in any public source.
Geography: Hearing offices differ by ten to fifteen points in approval rates beyond what the mix of judges explains, driven by local economic conditions, regional medical infrastructure, and office-level practice cultures that develop over time.

A national program, a single statutory standard, and systematically different outcomes depending on which judge you draw, whether you can afford a lawyer who knows that judge, and which office covers your zip code. The binding agency-level law that does exist — Social Security Rulings, HALLEX — covers a narrow band of interpretive questions. Everything outside that band is where the variation lives.

Next episode: if horizontal consistency doesn't exist at the hearing level, does top-down appellate review fix it? Spoiler — it doesn't.

Same Evidence, Different Outcomes: How Credibility and Burden of Proof Decide What Happens in the Hearing Room

Saison 2 · Épisode 11

mardi 28 avril 2026 • Durée 28:58

Two claimants walk into two hearing rooms in the same building on the same day. Same herniated disc, same imaging, same attorneys, same legal standard. One walks out with benefits. The other doesn't. The difference isn't the evidence — it's that one ALJ believed her claimant and the other didn't.

In this episode, Gwen and Marc break down the two factors that most often explain why identical cases produce opposite outcomes:

How Social Security overhauled its credibility framework in 2016 to shift from "do I believe this person" to "are these symptoms consistent with the record" — and why ALJs are still making character judgments anyway
The specificity principle: why "a sharp, stabbing pain that radiates down my right leg to my knee" carries more weight than "it really hurts" — and why admitting what you can do makes you more believable about what you can't
Social media, surveillance, and the pattern problem — it's not the concert photo that destroys your case, it's the gap between the photo and what you told the judge
The boilerplate credibility finding that showed up in thousands of decisions and why the Ninth Circuit said summarizing the medical evidence isn't the same as explaining why you don't believe the claimant
The structural tension at the heart of burden of proof: the APA says the proponent bears the burden, which means the claimant in a benefits case loses on a 50/50 record — even though the ALJ was supposed to be helping develop that record
Why that interaction plays out completely differently in asylum, where the substantive standard is more generous but the evidence base can be so narrow that a single credibility finding is the entire case

Credibility determines how much of your evidence the judge credits. Burden determines how much credited evidence you need. And which ALJ ends up in the room with you may matter more than either — which is exactly where the next episode picks up.

Lire plusRéduire

Podcasts Similaires Basées sur le Contenu

Découvrez des podcasts liées à Administrative Remedies. Explorez des podcasts avec des thèmes, sujets, et formats similaires. Ces similarités sont calculées grâce à des données tangibles, pas d'extrapolations !

Il n'y a pas de contenu associé à ce podcast.

À propos Méthodologie Contact Me soutenir Politique de confidentialité Mentions légales

Administrative Remedies – Détails, épisodes et analyse

Détails du podcast

Classements récents

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Liens partagés entre épisodes et podcasts

Spotify1

Apple Podcast1

Other1

Qualité et score du flux RSS

Historique des publications

Derniers épisodes publiés

Podcasts et contenus similaires

Podcasts Similaires Basées sur le Contenu

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Podcasts Similaires Basées sur le Contenu

Spotify1

Apple Podcast1

Other1