Dan Walters
@profdanwalters.bsky.social
Law professor at Texas A&M University School of Law, specializing in administrative law. Views are mine alone. Dog pictured is Oliver Wendell Holmes Walters Jr. (RIP 2025)
https://law.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/find-people/faculty-profiles/daniel-e.-walters
https://law.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/find-people/faculty-profiles/daniel-e.-walters
Really interesting from @donmoyn.bsky.social: the ball is up in the air in the court of public opinion when it comes to the value of independence in administration. Lots of tactical implications of this for our politics.
open.substack.com/pub/donmoyni...
open.substack.com/pub/donmoyni...
October 22, 2025 at 12:02 PM
Really interesting from @donmoyn.bsky.social: the ball is up in the air in the court of public opinion when it comes to the value of independence in administration. Lots of tactical implications of this for our politics.
open.substack.com/pub/donmoyni...
open.substack.com/pub/donmoyni...
Remarkable that just a year out from Loper Bright you have judges who were previously Chevron critics beginning opinions this way.
media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...
media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...
October 15, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Remarkable that just a year out from Loper Bright you have judges who were previously Chevron critics beginning opinions this way.
media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...
media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...
What a cool diagram from @jamesgoodwin.bsky.social and @progressivereform.bsky.social showing the changes from the Fall 2024 Unified Agenda to the (recently issued) Spring 2025 Unified Agenda.
progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/tru...
progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/tru...
September 16, 2025 at 1:30 PM
What a cool diagram from @jamesgoodwin.bsky.social and @progressivereform.bsky.social showing the changes from the Fall 2024 Unified Agenda to the (recently issued) Spring 2025 Unified Agenda.
progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/tru...
progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/tru...
Just because you don't pay doesn't mean you don't pay.
September 6, 2025 at 4:03 PM
Just because you don't pay doesn't mean you don't pay.
This argument (let me do the illegal thing because paying people back would take me back to square one) is truly stupid, but I'm not gonna lie--it probably will work with the Supreme Court.
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/u...
September 4, 2025 at 11:27 AM
This argument (let me do the illegal thing because paying people back would take me back to square one) is truly stupid, but I'm not gonna lie--it probably will work with the Supreme Court.
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/u...
There's just no serious argument that these things are good, as evidenced by Cato sounding the alarm. The biggest question in the world right now is how soon a distracted public will figure out that it matters for them more than grievance symbolism.
www.nytimes.com/2025/08/22/b...
www.nytimes.com/2025/08/22/b...
August 23, 2025 at 3:54 PM
There's just no serious argument that these things are good, as evidenced by Cato sounding the alarm. The biggest question in the world right now is how soon a distracted public will figure out that it matters for them more than grievance symbolism.
www.nytimes.com/2025/08/22/b...
www.nytimes.com/2025/08/22/b...
As J. Jackson points out, the Court is running a precedential shell game where unreasoned or barely rationalized emergency orders become the sole basis for later emergency orders. Whatever this is, it's not responsible or law-like.
August 21, 2025 at 10:03 PM
As J. Jackson points out, the Court is running a precedential shell game where unreasoned or barely rationalized emergency orders become the sole basis for later emergency orders. Whatever this is, it's not responsible or law-like.
I can't recall seeing this kind of deregulation-in-the-face-of-industry-preferences before. Not a great sign for court review, but it's also making me feel better about the possibility that maybe they're going to win and unleash climate torts.
www.npr.org/2025/08/19/n...
www.npr.org/2025/08/19/n...
August 19, 2025 at 11:26 AM
I can't recall seeing this kind of deregulation-in-the-face-of-industry-preferences before. Not a great sign for court review, but it's also making me feel better about the possibility that maybe they're going to win and unleash climate torts.
www.npr.org/2025/08/19/n...
www.npr.org/2025/08/19/n...
Very excited that my article "Informational Administration" will appear in the Stanford Law Review's special administrative law issue next year! You can download the draft at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers..... It's still a work-in-progress, so comments are very much welcome.
August 17, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Very excited that my article "Informational Administration" will appear in the Stanford Law Review's special administrative law issue next year! You can download the draft at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers..... It's still a work-in-progress, so comments are very much welcome.
Judges Katsas and Rao are really on a rampage in the DC Circuit right now nixing lower court injunctions blocking impoundment and dismantling of agencies, all on justiciability, but the en banc court better listen to Judge Pillard, who has common sense on her side.
www.law360.com/appellate/ar...
www.law360.com/appellate/ar...
August 15, 2025 at 4:36 PM
Judges Katsas and Rao are really on a rampage in the DC Circuit right now nixing lower court injunctions blocking impoundment and dismantling of agencies, all on justiciability, but the en banc court better listen to Judge Pillard, who has common sense on her side.
www.law360.com/appellate/ar...
www.law360.com/appellate/ar...
This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. These people have no idea how anything works and just expect AI to magically solve every problem in the world. Snake oil.
www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
July 26, 2025 at 3:43 PM
This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. These people have no idea how anything works and just expect AI to magically solve every problem in the world. Snake oil.
www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
I will be very curious to see where the jobs-cut numbers land when this is all said and done. This initiative has all the hallmarks of Trump's meager, largely symbolic efforts on regulatory rollbacks during his first term. Make a big pronouncement, declare mission accomplised, then fail.
July 11, 2025 at 7:07 PM
I will be very curious to see where the jobs-cut numbers land when this is all said and done. This initiative has all the hallmarks of Trump's meager, largely symbolic efforts on regulatory rollbacks during his first term. Make a big pronouncement, declare mission accomplised, then fail.
Well, whether that's true or not (I have no idea), it doesn't seem to have been true here, at least until the Vietnam War era. www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-158-...
June 23, 2025 at 12:16 PM
Well, whether that's true or not (I have no idea), it doesn't seem to have been true here, at least until the Vietnam War era. www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-158-...
Finally official! Looking forward to the next chapter and to having the freedom to take some scholarly risks in the name of knowledge, understanding, and progress.
June 13, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Finally official! Looking forward to the next chapter and to having the freedom to take some scholarly risks in the name of knowledge, understanding, and progress.
LMAO at this "Permitting Data and Technology Standard" just issued by the Trump administration--ostensibly to streamline permitting processes--that reads like a tech bro ukase.
permitting.innovation.gov/resources/da...
permitting.innovation.gov/resources/da...
June 4, 2025 at 3:08 PM
LMAO at this "Permitting Data and Technology Standard" just issued by the Trump administration--ostensibly to streamline permitting processes--that reads like a tech bro ukase.
permitting.innovation.gov/resources/da...
permitting.innovation.gov/resources/da...
This is such a feeble attempt to insulate the Fed from the obviously destabilizing implications of effectively foreshadowing intent to overrule Humphrey's Executor. You could easily have said NLRB/MSPB are "uniquely" structured to fall within the "exception" created by Seila Law. Didn't matter.
May 23, 2025 at 12:21 AM
This is such a feeble attempt to insulate the Fed from the obviously destabilizing implications of effectively foreshadowing intent to overrule Humphrey's Executor. You could easily have said NLRB/MSPB are "uniquely" structured to fall within the "exception" created by Seila Law. Didn't matter.
It was heartbreaking to let go of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. today. Those of you lucky enough to meet him know he was a special, special guy that meant the world to me. I'm not sure what to do now, but if you have a second to pet your furry friend and think about Oliver, it would make me happy.
May 2, 2025 at 8:27 PM
It was heartbreaking to let go of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. today. Those of you lucky enough to meet him know he was a special, special guy that meant the world to me. I'm not sure what to do now, but if you have a second to pet your furry friend and think about Oliver, it would make me happy.
April 15, 2025 at 10:30 PM
I see we're dispensing with standing analysis in two sentences now.
April 8, 2025 at 4:58 PM
I see we're dispensing with standing analysis in two sentences now.
Justice Jackson is not pulling punches.
April 8, 2025 at 2:13 PM
Justice Jackson is not pulling punches.
I know it's Portland, but there's nowhere to stand.
April 5, 2025 at 7:29 PM
I know it's Portland, but there's nowhere to stand.
The four arch conservatives join a blustery dissent calling this an act of "judicial hubris." Notable because these four are constantly complaining, when they happen to be in a 5-4 or 6-3 majority, about liberal dissents saying the same thing. Hard to take these people seriously.
March 5, 2025 at 3:11 PM
The four arch conservatives join a blustery dissent calling this an act of "judicial hubris." Notable because these four are constantly complaining, when they happen to be in a 5-4 or 6-3 majority, about liberal dissents saying the same thing. Hard to take these people seriously.
It's telling that Justice Barrett joined the liberals in dissenting--something of a pattern in EPA cases (think of Ohio v. EPA). Barrett, a legitimate textualist, wants nothing to do with this hackery. She can tell just as well as we all can that this is heads I win, tails you lose jurisprudence.
March 4, 2025 at 3:54 PM
It's telling that Justice Barrett joined the liberals in dissenting--something of a pattern in EPA cases (think of Ohio v. EPA). Barrett, a legitimate textualist, wants nothing to do with this hackery. She can tell just as well as we all can that this is heads I win, tails you lose jurisprudence.
The Court instead says that "limitations" implies more concrete "implementation." Never mind that EPA thought it was just fine to state the goal and let regulatees figure out a cost-effective way to comply. Now EPA has to be sufficiently prescriptive in the specific means of obtaining a goal.
March 4, 2025 at 3:54 PM
The Court instead says that "limitations" implies more concrete "implementation." Never mind that EPA thought it was just fine to state the goal and let regulatees figure out a cost-effective way to comply. Now EPA has to be sufficiently prescriptive in the specific means of obtaining a goal.