Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/shruti_rana Recent documents in Shruti Rana en-us Sun, 31 May 2009 12:03:52 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/shruti_rana/3 http://works.bepress.com/shruti_rana/3 Mon, 18 May 2009 11:36:47 PDT Judicial review of administrative decision making is an essential institutional check on agency power. Recently, however, the Department of Justice dramatically revised its regulations in an attempt to insulate its decision making from public and federal court scrutiny. These "streamlining" rules, carried out in the name of national security and immigration reform, have led to a breakdown in the rule of law in our judicial system.While much attention has been focused on the Department of Justice's recent attempts to shield executive power from the reach of Congress, its efforts to undermine judicial review have so far escaped such scrutiny. Yet the streamlining rules have had far-reaching doctrinal and practical consequences. They have led to chaos at the agency, where the emphasis in immigration adjudication has explicitly shifted away from reliance on standards and precedents towards increased reliance on discretionary, and often arbitrary, decision making. Immigration appeals have flooded the federal courts, nearly doubling the size of some circuit caseloads, while trapping the courts in a doctrinal quandary between competing duties of judicial review and agency deference.This Article argues that if left unchecked, the Department of Justice's streamlining reforms will eviscerate judicial review, turning it into an illusory exercise incapable of restraining agency action. Not only will agency decision making become less rule- and law-based, but significant spheres of agency action will be rendered immune from judicial review, corroding the rule of law in our judicial system. This evisceration of judicial review is unwarranted and unwise. To help stem this erosion, this Article proposes more nuanced interpretations of deference and judicial review principles which can resolve the dilemmas facing the federal courts and preserve the vitality of judicial review over agency decisions. Shruti Rana Judicial Review http://works.bepress.com/shruti_rana/2 http://works.bepress.com/shruti_rana/2 Mon, 18 May 2009 11:36:47 PDT Shruti Rana http://works.bepress.com/shruti_rana/1 http://works.bepress.com/shruti_rana/1 Mon, 18 May 2009 11:36:46 PDT From its inception, Google has promoted itself as a company that dares to be different in its pursuit of innovation and information. The company's new philanthropic arm, Google.org, promises to be just as pioneering in its search for social returns through the mechanism of profit. This Essay takes a closer look at the Google.org experiment in philanthropy. It argues that Google.org's uniqueness lies not in its "hybrid" model that merges for-profit and charitable aims, but in the ways it seeks to use market mechanisms to harness the social benefits of information technology for the public good. Google.org also has enormous transformative potential, as it is freed from the legal restrictions on commercial activity that apply to non-profit entities, and the market pressures that generally confine for-profit businesses. However, as this experiment in philanthropy plays out, this Article cautions that Google.org must also develop innovative accountability structures to match its ambitious goals. Shruti Rana Philanthropy