Adam Crews

Lisbon restaurant recs:

100maneiras.com/contactos/

restauranteclubedejornalistas.com#carta

New from me: Is administrative common law something that we can find in customary agency practices?

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

man in suit and tie wearing glasses and smiling

Vermont Yankee is re-emerging as a cornerstone of administrative law. In this Stanford Law Review article, #RutgersLaw Professor @adamgcrews.bsky.social explores how courts are invoking it to limit judicial overreach, revive legislative primacy... (1/2)

Re: Consumers’ Research. (I get it, no one cares!)

The Article III problem in the case was a serious one because this legal issue does not “evade review” if petitioners use the right procedural vehicles to mount their challenge. (See below.)

The Court’s resolution is more ipse dixit than analysis.

And if I keep making typos like this, it will also be my last 🙃

I had a baby law prof milestone today: With thanks to Judge Readler of the Sixth Circuit, I got my first judicial citation.

This is all the more existing because the prevailing party was represented by my friend and former co-clerk Matt Rice.

A fun thing about being an absent-minded administrative law professor is that I have a note to myself from 2023 that reads “15 cfr 744 supp 5,” and I look at it every few months and never have the slightest clue what I was hoping to remind myself to do with that.

In a rush to criticize an entity that shits all over civil servants (DOGE), this framing ends up … shitting all over a civil servant who made an honest error.

John Roberts isn’t at his keyboard hitting “send” on this stuff himself.

The Trump/Elon thing is for Pride, right? Because it’s so camp? Like, this has to be being done just for the gays?

Visions of <em>Vermont Yankee</em> | Stanford Law Review

My latest article, Visions of Vermont Yankee, is now in print.

review.law.stanford.edu/print/articl...

I’m so glad that someone appreciated the TSwift reference!

Heading to my favorite city (DC) to do my favorite thing (complain about the 1970s DC Circuit).

Got called for jury duty and was very predictably cut for being a law professor (because heaven forbid someone know what he’s talking about!!!), but I would like to send all my best wishes to the plaintiff, who was very, very hot.

My most right-wing take is that we should impose the death penalty on PATCO riders who aren’t smart enough to allow two lanes of foot traffic into and out of the station.

I wonder if this is the type of stupid gimmick that the Founders might have deemed sufficient cause to refuse to seat Wisconsin’s congressional delegation, on the ground that Wisconsin no longer has a republican form of government.

Me, teaching Admin this semester: “Damn I wish stuff would slow down for, like, a day so I can keep on track with my syllabus.”

Me, having just been assigned Fed Courts for next year: “Damn this would be such a fun and exciting time to be teaching this class!!!”

I forgot how much more fun it is to people watch at a bar in LA than in Philly.

Had to break the hard news to the boyfriend that the article I’ve been working on forever is actually my longest relationship.

Excited to share my latest manuscript, Ghostwriting the Government, on SSRN (comments welcome!): papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

A 🧵:

The Supreme Court Doesn’t Seem Eager to Axe This $9 Billion Broadband Subsidy Lawyers for a conservative non-profit called the program a “bureaucrat's dream.”

My take on the FCC v. Consumers’ Research argument:

“If I were the government, I would feel pretty good right now,” Adam Crews, a law professor at Rutgers who represented the FCC during previous proceedings, told CNET.

www.cnet.com/home/interne...

Happy FCC v. Consumers’ Research day!

This is a hugely important separation of powers case—both on the merits and in the sense that it doesn’t belong in an Article III court at all.

The Supreme Court will hear a potentially very important case on the nondelegation doctrine this Wednesday.

Over at the Notice & Comment Blog, I have some thoughts on the least sexy issue in the case: Whether there’s even Article III standing.

www.yalejreg.com/nc/the-redre...

My boyfriend, a domestic terrorist, just tried to insist that we “don’t have assigned sides of the bed” at a hotel.

Two things can be true at once:

1) Trump’s targeting law firms for political reasons is bad.

2) Paul Weiss’s resolving that dispute by agreeing to (*re-checks notes*) help veterans and fight antisemitism (as opposed to, like, free legal services for J6ers?) is actually good.

Anora is not a good movie. After we watched it, I described it to my boyfriend as “literally pointless—a movie with no point.” It’s 20 minutes too long, the dialogue falls apart halfway through, and not a single character grows from the experience. Pointless and bad.

#RutgersLaw Assistant Professor @adamgcrews.bsky.social shares his insight on the "FCC v. Consumers’ Research" Supreme Court case in our 2025 Legal Issues to Watch roundup: law.rutgers.edu/LegalIssuest...

#Rutgers #lawschool #lawsky

Happy first day of Administrative Law to all who celebrate (just me).

wclr.commonwealthlaw.widener.edu/wp-content/u...

Now in print: My contribution to Widener Commonwealth Law Review’s Symposium on Judging and Administrative Law, in which I call out a little bit of hypocrisy from the Biden administration on the importance of deference to longstanding and bipartisan regulations.

Link below 👇🏻

10/10 gift. No notes.