Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Courts
A symposium hosted by the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, the American Bar Association Section on Administrative Law and the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis.
- Cass Sunstein, Harvard University
- Moderator: Judge Stephen Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
- Caroline Cecot, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University and New York University Institute for Policy Integrity
- Jerry Ellig, Mercatus Center at George Mason University
- Emily Hammond, The George Washington University Law School
- Paul Noe, American Forest and Paper Association
- Helgi C. Walker, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
- With additional comments from syposium co-chairs Susan E. Dudley, GW Regulatory Studies Center and Jeffrey A. Rosen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
[video:https://vimeo.com/187742677 width:560 height:315 align:center lightbox_title:Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Courts - Cass Sunstein Keynote]
[video:https://vimeo.com/187743660 width:560 height:315 align:center lightbox_title:Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Courts - Expert Panel]
The symposium on “Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Courts” began with remarks from Cass Sunstein based on his recent working paper, “Cost-Benefit Analysis and Arbitrariness Review.” Then, Judge Steve Williams moderated a panel of experts as they examined how the courts have considered benefit-cost analysis when reviewing regulations under various statutes, how well judges have evaluated agencies’ regulatory impact analyses, and the appropriate level of judicial deference to agency actions. The experts offered different perspectives on the appropriate role for benefit cost analysis in regulatory policy and the effect of judicial review.