The regulatory state has become a cost-benefit state, in the sense that under prevailing executive orders, agencies must catalogue the costs and benefits of regulations before issuing them, and in general, must show that their benefits justify their costs. Agencies have well-established tools for valuing risks to health, safety, and the environment. Sometimes, however, regulations are designed to protect moral values, and agencies struggle to quantify those values; on important occasions, they ignore them. That is a mistake. People may care deeply about such values, and they suffer a welfare loss when moral values are compromised. If so, the best way to measure that welfare loss is through eliciting private willingness to pay. Of course, it is true that some moral commitments cannot be counted in cost-benefit analysis because the law rules them off-limits. It is also true that the principal reason to protect moral values is not to prevent welfare losses to those who care about those values. But from the welfarist standpoint, those losses matter, and they might turn out to be very large. Agencies should take them into account. If they fail to do so, they might well be acting arbitrarily and hence in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. These claims raise fundamental issues in legal and political theory about welfarism and its limits, and they also bear on a wide variety of issues, including protection of foreigners, of victims of mass atrocities, of children, of rape victims, of disabled people, of future generations, and of animals.
Article
Are Speech Rights for Speakers?
Though it may sound surprising, there is a great deal of debate about whether speakers have free speech rights. Those who deny it say that the freedom of speech protects listeners, not speakers. Lately, these skeptics can point for support to First Amendment case law, which is expanding in ways that draw speakers’ rights into question. When search engines, Internet service providers, food producers, and so on are claiming immunity from regulation because they are speakers, the time has come to reevaluate speakers’ rights.
This Article does just that. It confronts hard questions about whether speakers have rights, including the argument that it is illogical for speakers to have rights. It shows that this is not the case. In fact, under the most plausible views of freedom of speech, speakers must have free speech rights.
Nevertheless, recognizing speakers’ rights is often inconvenient and difficult. Above all else, recognizing speakers’ rights has tended to distract from listeners’ rights, to less than salutary effect. These problems are real. But rights by definition complicate matters. The fact that they do so is not a reason to reject them.
Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act
Should Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents be eligible for pre-enforcement judicial review? The D.C. Circuit’s 2015 decision in Florida Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Department of the Treasury puts its interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act at odds with both general administrative law norms in favor of pre-enforcement review of final agency action and also the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the nearly identical Tax Injunction Act. A 2017 federal district court decision in Chamber of Commerce v. IRS, appealable to the Fifth Circuit, interprets the Anti-Injunction Act differently and could lead to a circuit split regarding pre-enforcement judicial review of Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents. Other cases interpreting the Anti-Injunction Act more generally are fragmented and inconsistent. In an effort to gain greater understanding of the Anti-Injunction Act and its role in tax administration, this Article looks back to the Anti-Injunction Act’s origin in 1867 as part of Civil War–era revenue legislation and the evolution of both tax administrative practices and Anti-Injunction Act jurisprudence since that time.