{"id":397,"date":"2026-07-16T14:10:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T14:10:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397"},"modified":"2026-07-16T14:10:26","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T14:10:26","slug":"the-administrative-agency-cases-were-not-the-courts-only-significant-separation-of-powers-decisions-this-term","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397","title":{"rendered":"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not\u00a0necessarily\u00a0reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff. <\/em><\/p>\n

Read more The public\u2019s view of the Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

This term, the court decided several important separation of powers cases. In Trump v. Slaughter<\/em> and Trump v. Cook<\/em>, the court addressed the relationship between Congress and administrative agencies in the executive branch. Less noticed were the court\u2019s decisions in Rutherford v. United States<\/em> and Fernandez v. United States<\/em>, in which the justices considered the balance of authority between Congress and the judiciary. Although Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em> may have garnered little attention as separation of powers decisions, they place substantial \u2013 and welcome \u2013 limitations on federal courts\u2019 authority to undermine Congressional judgments in the area of criminal law.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

In 2018, Congress passed the bipartisan First Step Act, the most significant criminal justice legislation in a generation. Among other reforms, the FSA expanded federal inmates\u2019 access to \u201ccompassionate release\u201d \u2013 a form of post-conviction relief codified in 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3582(c). That statute instructs that a \u201ccourt may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except\u201d where a court \u201cfinds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant\u201d a sentence reduction.<\/p>\n

In Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em>, the court limited the scope of lower courts\u2019 authority to grant compassionate release. Although the court did not precisely define the kind of \u201cextraordinary and compelling reasons\u201d that might warrant relief, it abrogated decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Circuits in which those courts construed the compassionate release statute as modified by the FSA to confer nearly unfettered authority on the lower courts to reduce otherwise final (and otherwise lawful) sentences.<\/p>\n

Much of the commentary about Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em> has understandably focused on the limitations those decisions place on lower courts\u2019 authority with respect to federal inmates. But the court\u2019s opinions take a wider perspective. They are focused not on the relationship between the courts and inmates, but rather on the courts and Congress.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Compassionate release in the federal system dates back . The original compassionate release statute, , provided that a court could reduce an inmate\u2019s sentence to time served, but only upon a motion made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. BOP regulations issued in 1980 limited such motions to \u201cparticularly meritorious or unusual circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing\u201d like \u201can extraordinary change in an inmate\u2019s personal or family situation or if an inmate becomes severely ill.\u201d In 1984, Congress replaced the original statute with a new version, which retained the BOP Director as gatekeeper and introduced the \u201cextraordinary and compelling\u201d standard found in the current version of the statute. In another provision of the 1984 law, now codified in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 994(t), Congress delegated authority to the U.S. Sentencing Commission to define the \u201cextraordinary and compelling\u201d standard with one substantive restriction: \u201cRehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Sentencing Commission\u2019s long gestating definition, finally incorporated into the Sentencing Guidelines in 2007, was broadly consistent with the BOP\u2019s 1980 regulations. The Commission provided \u201cspecific examples\u201d of the kind of \u201cextraordinary and compelling reasons\u201d that would warrant relief, including a \u201cterminal illness,\u201d certain \u201cpermanent physical or medical condition[s],\u201d and the death of the inmate\u2019s \u201conly family member capable of caring for\u201d the inmate\u2019s child or children. In 2016, the Sentencing Commission reaffirmed this understanding of the standard and provided further guidance about the kinds of \u201cmedical[s] condition[s]\u201d and \u201cfamily circumstances\u201d to which it might apply. With the BOP Director as gatekeeper, compassionate release motions during this period were exceedingly rare.<\/p>\n

The FSA made only one change to the compassionate release statute, but it was a big one: as the court explained in Rutherford<\/em>, Congress \u201cleft the \u2018extraordinary and compelling\u2019 standard untouched,\u201d but removed the BOP Director as gatekeeper. After the FSA, inmates are no longer barred from seeking relief absent a motion from the BOP Director on their behalf; the FSA authorizes inmates to seek compassionate release in federal courts on their own behalf.<\/p>\n

In the eight years since the FSA was enacted, courts have been flooded with petitions for compassionate release. Nearly 11,000 inmates moved for compassionate release in the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the latest data from the Department of Justice indicates that district courts have entertained nearly 37,000 compassionate release petitions through the end of FY 2025.<\/p>\n

This deluge of petitions required courts to consider the allocation of judicial and legislative authority in the area of criminal law. After all, in our system, as , \u201cthe power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department,\u201d and \u201c[i]t is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.\u201d In other words, after the FSA, courts addressing compassionate release petitions had to determine precisely how much substantive authority Congress intended to confer on the judiciary to amend otherwise final and lawful criminal sentences when it eliminated the BOP Director as gatekeeper for compassionate release petitions.<\/p>\n

Deep fissures quickly emerged among the circuits. Some circuits held that the FSA\u2019s procedural amendment to the compassionate release statute was not intended to confer additional substantive authority on federal courts to reduce final sentences. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held in 2021, \u201cCongress legislates against the backdrop of existing law,\u201d and when \u201cCongress reenacted the compassionate-release statute without any alterations to the phrase \u2018extraordinary and compelling reasons,\u2019 . . . \u2018the phrase largely retained the meaning it had under the previous version of the statute.\u2019\u201d \u201c[A]t its core,\u201d the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit explained, compassionate release \u201c[m]ost obviously . . . covers factors\u201d related to an inmate\u2019s \u201chealth, age, and family circumstances,\u201d i.e., factors related to \u201cpost<\/em>-sentencing changes to a prisoner\u2019s individual situation.\u201d<\/p>\n

But other circuits understood this part of the FSA as a sweeping grant of authority to revisit otherwise final sentences for, as Fernandez<\/em> put it, \u201cvirtually any reason whatsoever.\u201d This construction of the compassionate release statute, as modified by the FSA, originated with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit\u2019s 2020 decision in United States v. Brooker (Zullo)<\/em> \u2013 an opinion that escaped citation in Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em>, but which laid the groundwork for the assertion of judicial authority that the court ultimately rejected in those cases.<\/p>\n

Read more Reactions to Kagan and Barrett\u2019s congressional testimony<\/a><\/p>\n

Brooker<\/em> relied on two essential premises. The first was that the FSA\u2019s procedural change to the compassionate release statute \u201cfreed district courts\u201d to construe the phrase \u201cextraordinary and compelling reasons\u201d without reference to the historical purpose of compassionate release, or the meaning ascribed to that phrase by the Sentencing Commission since 2007. The second premise was that \u201c[t]he only statutory limit on what a court may consider to be extraordinary and compelling is that rehabilitation \u2026 alone<\/em> shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the view of some lower courts, Brooker<\/em>\u2019s second premise conferred immense authority on the judiciary. Those courts drew the following negative inference: if, as the court concluded in Brooker<\/em>, the only statutory limit on compassionate release is that \u201crehabilitation alone\u201d cannot support relief, it follows that courts may rely on any reason other<\/em> than rehabilitation, or any \u201ccomplex of circumstances\u201d to grant relief (even a complex of circumstances that includes rehabilitation). As the 1st Circuit put it, the scope of a district court\u2019s authority to grant compassionate release was governed by the maxim \u201cexpressio unius est exclusio alterius\u201d (\u201cthe expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other\u201d). By excluding \u201crehabilitation alone\u201d as a basis for relief, these courts reasoned, Congress authorized courts to grant relief on any other basis.<\/p>\n

In Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em>, both authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court rejected this reasoning and, with it, the extraordinary authority it transferred from Congress to the courts. \u201c[T]he force of any negative implication,\u201d the court explained in Rutherford<\/em>, \u201cdepends on context\u201d \u2013 context that some lower courts ignored. As the court noted in Rutherford<\/em>, in the FSA, Congress did not alter the substantive standard for compassionate release; it simply \u201copened a new procedural route for seeking a [sentence] reduction.\u201d And, the court further noted, compassionate release has \u201clong been defined by a prisoner\u2019s personal circumstances,\u201d including, for example, serious illness or an extraordinary change in the inmate\u2019s family situation.<\/p>\n

The court also looked beyond the compassionate release statute for evidence of Congress\u2019 intent. At issue in Rutherford<\/em> was whether Congress\u2019 non-retroactive reduction of sentences for certain federal gun crimes gave rise to sentencing disparities that could constitute an \u201cextraordinary and compelling\u201d reason warranting a reduction. The court breezily rejected that claim, explaining that when Congress amends criminal penalties, non-retroactivity is \u201cthe norm,\u201d and therefore any disparities that arise from such amendments cannot be \u201cextraordinary.\u201d In a conclusion that had been clear enough to some lower courts, the court explained that Congress\u2019 express decision not<\/em> to make a sentencing reduction retroactive is not a \u201ccompelling\u201d reason to reduce a sentence that Congress expressly chose \u201cto leave . . . intact.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Fernandez<\/em>, the issue was whether the compassionate release statute, as amended by the FSA, could be used as an end run around the detailed statutory scheme through which Congress has routed all challenges to the validity of an inmate\u2019s conviction (that is, habeas review under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2255). A challenge to the validity of an inmate\u2019s conviction cannot be \u201cextraordinary and compelling,\u201d the court explained, if it fails under the mechanism Congress expressly designed to adjudicate such challenges.<\/p>\n

Towards the end of Rutherford<\/em>, the court made explicit its concern about judicial aggrandizement at Congress\u2019 expense when it noted and rejected the \u201csweeping\u201d implications of a contrary outcome. By the logic of the opinions abrogated in Rutherford <\/em>and Fernandez<\/em>, Congress ceded much of its constitutional authority over criminal law and punishments (not to mention acts of lenity) in the FSA by simply modifying the procedural clause of the compassionate release statute. In rejecting this claim to judicial authority, the court posited \u201ca judge who believes that a mandatory minimum [that is, a statutorily required punishment that a defendant must receive for his offense] is unduly harsh\u201d and asked, incredulously, \u201c[c]ould she treat the severity of the sentence as an \u2018extraordinary and compelling reason\u2019 for compassionate release?\u201d The court noted that \u201c[p]etitioners refused to rule out this possibility at oral argument,\u201d and nor could they: lower courts\u2019 claim to that remarkable authority followed from the negative inference drawn in Brooker<\/em> and its progeny. But, as the court reiterated, \u201c\u2018[i]t is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and its punishment,\u2019\u201d and \u201c[t]reating the severity of a mandatory penalty as a reason for compassionate release rejects Congress\u2019s judgment that the punishment fits the crime.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s hypothetical judge was not a strawman. In Brooker<\/em>, after all, the court suggested that the FSA\u2019s procedural amendment authorized courts to grant compassionate release simply because the court viewed the inmate\u2019s sentence as \u201ctoo long in the first place.\u201d And in the eight years between enactment of the FSA and Barret\u2019s opinions in Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em>, many courts accepted Brooker<\/em>\u2019s invitation to revisit final and lawful sentences on the kind of policy grounds that are Congress\u2019 prerogative. In United States v. Ramsay<\/em>, to take one example, a district court granted compassionate release to an inmate who killed two innocent bystanders (including a pregnant woman whose baby subsequently died in an emergency delivery) while attempting to kill a member of a rival drug gang. The court cited Brooker<\/em> and granted relief, reducing his sentence from life imprisonment to 30 years because the inmate was 18 years old at the time of the offense. That may be a desirable policy position, but it is one that Congress has rejected by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment for murders, like Ramsay\u2019s, committed in connection with a racketeering enterprise. <\/p>\n

Other courts relied on Ramsay<\/em>\u2019s astonishing claim to judicial authority to grant relief to inmates who committed violent offenses, including murder, at 19 years old, 20 years old, 22 years old (subsequently vacated by the 3rd Circuit), and between the ages of 20 and 25 years old (subsequently vacated by the Supreme Court following Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em>).<\/p>\n

These decisions \u2013 and many more among the nearly 6,000 petitions granted through the end of FY 2025 \u2013 resemble the kind of highly subjective and often arbitrary decisions made in parole systems, but with even fewer guardrails and less accountability. Indeed, at the federal level, that kind of decision making gave rise to an \u201cunacceptable disparity of punishment\u201d that led Congress to abolish federal parole in 1984. So, too, in the compassionate release context. As the chief judge of the Northern District of Iowa wrote in 2025, this understanding of compassionate release may be \u201cwell-intentioned,\u201d but it is an \u201cill-conceived concept that once again places unfettered discretionary decision-making authority in the hands of individual judges.\u201d This, in turn, \u201cinevitably invites inconsistent and arbitrary application of the provisions based on judges\u2019 idiosyncratic beliefs and values.\u201d<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em> reset the equilibrium between Congress and the courts with respect to crimes and punishments. The policy issues raised in Rutherford<\/em>, Fernandez<\/em>, Brooker<\/em>, Ramsay<\/em>, and any number of other compassionate release cases are difficult, but they cannot and should not be resolved by the courts on an ad hoc basis. As the chief judge of the Northern District of Iowa noted, this approach \u201cdo[es] not correct, but compound[s], the danger of unwarranted disparity and arbitrary justice,\u201d all while sidestepping the \u201celectoral process should the people disagree with the exercise of that authority in releasing, or failing to release, offenders.\u201d In Rutherford<\/em> and Fernandez<\/em>, the court rejected that system, left open the possibility that Congress would grant further lenity to federal inmates, and thereby fulfilled its duty to preserve the separation of powers vital to our nation\u2019s system of government.<\/p>\n

Read more Trump administration asks justices to have lower court reconsider protected status for Venezuelan and Haitian nationals<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not\u00a0necessarily\u00a0reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff. Read more The public\u2019s view of the Supreme Court This term, the court decided several important separation of powers cases. In Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, the court addressed the relationship […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":280,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary"],"yoast_head":"\nThe administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not\u00a0necessarily\u00a0reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff. Read more The public\u2019s view of the Supreme Court This term, the court decided several important separation of powers cases. In Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, the court addressed the relationship […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-16T14:10:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-16T14:10:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397\"},\"wordCount\":2391,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Commentary\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397\",\"name\":\"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-16T14:10:26+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=397#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term - American Service Review","og_description":"Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not\u00a0necessarily\u00a0reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff. Read more The public\u2019s view of the Supreme Court This term, the court decided several important separation of powers cases. In Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, the court addressed the relationship […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-07-16T14:10:26+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term","datePublished":"2026-07-16T14:10:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397"},"wordCount":2391,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg","articleSection":["Commentary"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397","name":"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-16T14:10:26+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=397#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The administrative agency cases were not the court\u2019s only significant separation of powers decisions this term"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=397"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/397\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/280"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}