1 Gellhorn, Walter, Stone on Administrative Law, 46 Colum. L. Rev. 734 (1946).Google Scholar

2 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (4 vols. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1958; id. (2d ed. San Diego, Cal.: K. C. Davis Publishing Co., University of San Diego, 1978-83), 4 volumes published to date of 5 scheduled, plus 1982 supplement. See also his Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1969). I had the opportunity to comment on Davis' pioneering works in two articles: Realities of Regulation, 20 Pub. Ad. Rev. 219 (1960), and On Davis on Confining, Structuring, and Checking Administrative Discretion, 37 Law & Contemp. Prob. 49 (1972).Google Scholar

3 William C. Chase, The American Law School and the Rise of Administrative Government (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982).Google Scholar

4 Frances Kahn Zemans & Victor G. Rosenblum, The Making of a Public Profession (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1981).Google Scholar

5 Id. at 52–55. Providing some grist for Chase's critical mill might be administrative law's absence from lists of “helpfu1” courses. Respondents to our questionnaire listed among law school courses found particularly helpful to careers those in contracts, property, torts, evidence, civil procedure, constitutional law, corporations, taxation, and trusts and estates. Contracts headed the list with 50.3% of respondents rating the course as particularly helpful to their careers. On the other hand, respondents did not call for the elimination or shortening of the administrative law course. Only future interests, common law pleading, and property generated significant responses to our question about eliminating or shortening sectors of the curriculum. Id. at 144–50.Google Scholar

6 Victor G. Rosenblum, Law as a Political Instrument (New York: Random House, 1955).Google Scholar

7 Teubner, Gunther, Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modem Law, 17 Law & Soc'y. Rev. 239 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Id. at 275.Google Scholar

9 Id. Google Scholar

10 Id. at 280.Google Scholar

11 Consonant with the practice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, I describe as Vermont Yankee I that court's initial decision invalidating the NRC's licensing practices, National Resources Defense Council v. NRC. 547 F.2d 633 (1976). Vermont Yankee II refers to the Supreme Court's decision reversing and remanding the 1976 court of appeals ruling, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978). Vermont Yankee III refers to the court of appeals decision in 1982 on remand, NRDC v. NRC, 685 F.2d 459 (1982); and Vermont Yankee IV labels the Supreme Court's 1983 ruling on the appeal from Vermont Yankee III, Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 51 U.S.L.W. 4678 (U.S. 1983).Google Scholar

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 51 U.S.L.W. 4371 (U.S. 1983).Google Scholar

13 Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 51 U.S.L.W. 4449 (U.S. 1983).Google Scholar

14 435 US. 519, at 524.Google Scholar

15 Id. at 525.Google Scholar

16 547 F.2d at 653.Google Scholar

17 Id. at 644, 645.Google Scholar

18 435 U.S. 519, at 552–53.Google Scholar

19 Id. at 557–58.Google Scholar

20 685 F.2d 459, at 545.Google Scholar

21 Id. at 467.Google Scholar

22 Id. Google Scholar

23 Id. at 496-91.Google Scholar

24 Id. at 517.Google Scholar

25 Id. at 518.Google Scholar

26 Id. Google Scholar

27 51 U.S.L.W. 4678, at 4680.Google Scholar

28 Id. at 4681, 4682.Google Scholar

29 678 F.2d 222 (1982).Google Scholar

30 51 U.S.L.W. 4371, at 4373.Google Scholar

31 Id. at 4374.Google Scholar

32 Id. Google Scholar

33 That judges are “babes-in-the-woods” or even “relative babes-in-the-woods when it comes to understanding the public policy implications of their offices” is disputable. Justice Frankfurter was certainly a model of concern about public policy implications of judges' work. His “Dialogue” with my distinguished colleague Nathaniel Nathanson, for example, remains to this day one of the most sophisticated commentaries on judicial review's potential for “mischievous abstraction.”Frankfurter, Felix & Nathanson, Nathaniel L., Forbidden Dialogue: Standards of Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 1963 Sup. Ct. Rev. 2060.Google Scholar

34 51 U.S.L.W. 4449, at 4450.Google Scholar

35 Id. at 4453.Google Scholar

36 Id. at 4453, 4456.Google Scholar

37 51 U.S.L.W. 4371, at 4374.Google Scholar

38 Lettie M. Wenner, The Environmental Decade in Court 176 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

39 A glance at the table of contents of the Fall 1982 and Winter 1983 Administrative Law Review yields typical illustrations of my point. I cite these articles for a fortiori purposes. If the organized bar's own publication revels in empirical and theoretical studies, the more traditional academic law reviews must do so even more. I would call attention and approbation to the Aranson, Peter H., Gellhorn, Ernest, & Robinson, Glen O. article A Theory of Legislative Delegation, 68 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (1982).Google Scholar

40 Strauss, Peter L., Teaching Administrative Law: The Wonder of the Unknown, 33 J. Legal Ed. 1 (1983).Google Scholar

41 Id. Google Scholar

42 Schuck, Peter H., Organization Theory and the Teaching of Administrative Law, 33 J. Legal Ed. 13 (1983).Google Scholar

43 Mashaw, Jerry L., Mirrored Ambivalence: A Sometimes Curmudgeonly Comment on the Relation ship Between Organization Theory and Administrative Law, 33 J. Legal Ed. 24, 26, 29 (1983).Google Scholar

44 These and other draft reports, prepared for the most part by administrative law professors, are available from the Administrative Conference of the United States, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. The conference, composed of agency representatives, private practitioners, and members of the academic community, takes appropriate pride in its mission “to make the government's administrative system both more fair and more efficient, and thus more responsive to the policy mandates of the President and Congress.”Google Scholar