The 28th Lecture of "Interdisciplinary Salon of Law" of the China Institute for Socio-Legal Studies was successfully held
On the morning of May 16th, the 28th Interdisciplinary Legal Salon, hosted by the China Institute for Socio-Legal Studie at Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), was successfully held in Room 206, North Building No. 4, Xuhui Campus, SJTU. The theme of this salon was "Judicial Review of U.S. Administrative Interpretations After Chevron." John Ohnesorge, Professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School and Director of its East Asian Legal Studies Center, served as the keynote speaker. Professor Jiang Hongzhen from SJTU's KoGuan School of Law moderated the event. Ji Weidong, University Professor of Humanity and Social Sciences at SJTU and Dean of the China Institute for Socio-Legal Studie, delivered opening remarks. Associate Professor Guan Bohao from the School of Law at East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL), Associate Professor Liu Yuechuan from the School of Foreign-Related Rule of Law at ECUPL, Young Associate Researcher Cai Peiru from Fudan University Law School, and Assistant Professor Yan Dongni from Tongji University Law School participated in the discussion. Dozens of faculty members, students, and legal practitioners from SJTU, ECUPL, Shanghai Normal University, and other institutions attended the salon.
Professor Jiang Hongzhen chaired the salon and extended a warm welcome to Professor John Ohnesorge. Professor Jiang introduced the guest for opening remarks and the discussants, expressing her anticipation for Professor Ohnesorge's insightful lecture.
Professor Ji Weidong, on behalf of the China Institute for Socio-Legal Studie, extended the warmest welcome and sincerest gratitude to Professor John Ohnesorge. He provided an overview of the China Institute for Socio-Legal Studie at SJTU and the relevant background of Professor Ohnesorge's lecture topic. He expressed his belief that the attendees, especially those studying public law, would be very interested in the lecture topic. He looked forward to the engaging discussions among participants and wished Professor Ohnesorge an enjoyable trip to China and Shanghai.
Professor John Ohnesorge began by expressing his sincere gratitude for Professor Jiang Hongzhen's enthusiastic introduction, Professor Ji Weidong's cordial remarks, and the presence of all attendees. Professor Ohnesorge spoke about his connection to Shanghai, recalling his exchange studies at East China Normal University and Fudan University in the 1980s. His research focuses on the role of law in society, with an interest in macro-level questions such as why legal systems are important and how they actually operate. His work often centers on how economic development models in different countries or regions interact with legal systems, particularly within the administrative law domain of public law. Citing Section 706 of the U.S. Federal Administrative Procedure Act regarding the scope of judicial review, he divided his lecture into three parts: the pre-Chevron era, the Chevron era, and the post-Chevron era. He also elaborated on some socio-legal issues following the potential overturning of the Chevron doctrine. Professor Ohnesorge also summarized the impact of overturning the Chevron doctrine on the distribution of power among the U.S. legislative, executive, and judicial branches. He noted that Chinese administrative law thinking is more akin to European administrative law, differing significantly from U.S. administrative law. This lecture, he explained, aimed to discuss the potential impacts of changes in legal principles and help attendees better understand the operation of U.S. administrative law.
During the discussion phase, Associate Professor Guan Bohao mentioned that Professor Ohnesorge had thoroughly introduced important cases related to the topic and their backgrounds, from NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Skidmore v. Swift & Co., and Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. He stated that he had benefited greatly and strongly agreed with Professor Ohnesorge's views, especially regarding the significant socio-legal issues if the Chevron doctrine is overturned. Associate Professor Guan also spoke about his experience studying administrative law at Washington University. In response, Professor Ohnesorge kindly noted that administrative law is a challenging subject for LL.M. students because U.S. administrative law is closely tied to American national history, political development, and the separation of powers, and it differs greatly in style from civil law administrative systems.
Associate Professor Liu Yuechuan remarked that Chevron is one of the most important landmark cases in the U.S. and one of the most significant she learned in her common law courses, with its influence extending beyond administrative law. Understanding the latest developments regarding Chevron is crucial. Chevron also provides vital guidance for predicting the direction of many specific cases. She thanked Professor Ohnesorge again for sharing the latest developments on the case during the salon. Professor Ohnesorge added that Justice Scalia was one of Chevron's biggest supporters and one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court, making his reasons for championing Chevron intriguing. Professor Ohnesorge did not believe Justice Scalia favored administrative agencies but also opposed lower courts being overly active in reviewing administrative actions. Thus, as the Chinese proverb goes, it was a matter of "choosing the lesser of two evils."
Associate Researcher Cai Peiru stated that Professor Ohnesorge's excellent lecture reawakened her memories of studying U.S. administrative law. As Professor Ohnesorge had mentioned, studying U.S. administrative law is challenging and differs significantly from Chinese administrative law: for instance, administrative regulations made by Chinese administrative organs have the authority to fill legal gaps, whereas in U.S. administrative law, agency actions in cases like Chevron are typically considered interpretations of law. On this point, Ms. Cai discussed with Professor Ohnesorge the question of "whether administrative agencies have the power to fill legal gaps." Professor Ohnesorge explained that interpretations of law by U.S. administrative agencies are not based on their own inherent power but stem from very broad delegations of authority from Congress, meaning there are no true legal gaps.
Assistant Professor Yan Dongni proposed that the crux of the establishment and potential overturning of the Chevron doctrine lies in the allocation of power and authority between administrative agencies and the judiciary. Overturning Chevron would shift power from agencies to courts, and courts undertaking such responsibility must consider their capacity, including information, expertise, and their position within the constitutional structure. Furthermore, regarding ambiguities in legal provisions, she believed that in some situations, administrative agencies need to be able to make effective adjustments based on specific circumstances, especially for emerging issues arising from social changes and development. Professor Ohnesorge agreed with Assistant Professor Yan's views, considering the Chevron doctrine a matter of common sense, much as he believed Justice Stevens, who authored the Chevron opinion, did not think he was creating a new doctrine but merely restating common sense.
During the Q&A session, a student from SJTU's KoGuan School of Law asked about the potential impact of overturning the Chevron doctrine on the rulemaking of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its handling of securities fraud cases, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, which was handed down the day before the Loper Bright Enterprises decision. Professor Ohnesorge provided a detailed response to the student's question.
Finally, Professor Ji Weidong delivered concluding remarks for the salon. He pointed out that Professor Ohnesorge had systematically reviewed different theories in the field of socio-legal studies in his lecture and, based on this, constructed a logically clear and highly enlightening intellectual map. He once again thanked Professor Ohnesorge for his excellent lecture, the discussants for their insightful comments, and all attendees for their active participation.
After the salon, the attending guests took a group photo. The salon concluded in a pleasant and enthusiastic atmosphere.