이 논문은 미국 연방대법원의 2011 회기 기간 중 행정판례의 동향을 살펴보고 중요판례를 분석하고 있다. 행정판례는 법원이 행정작용을 심사한 경우를 말한다. 기간 중 행정판례의 동향을 살펴보면, ⅰ)Chevron 존중 법리가 지속적으로 변화하고 있으며, ⅱ) 판사의 정치적 소신에 따른 판결 경향도 지속되고 있고, ⅲ) 전단 자의 금지 원칙에 의한 심사 내지 엄격심사에 있어서 정치적 영향도 심사대상으로 하자는 견해가 등장하고 있다. 이러한 견해는 연방대법원 대법관이나 유력학자에 의해 주장되는 것으로서, 종전의 전단 자의 금지 원칙 심사가 이성에 근거한 전문가의 기술적 판단이었는데 비해, 정치적 요소가 심사대상으로 된다면 정치적 판단으로 바뀔 수 있다는 점에서 매우 주목할 만한 견해로 보인다. Nnebe 판결은 택시면허에 대한 약식 면허 정지 처분 전에 청문이 없다고 하더라도 사후 청문이 예정되어 있으면 적법절차 위배가 아니라고 하였다. 그리고 사후 청문도 의례적인 기각 방식으로 진행된다면 적법절차 위배가 될 가능성이 있다고 하였다. Winn 판결은 종교재단 설립학교에 기부한 납세자가 그만큼 세금공제을 받는 것이 국교제정금지조항에 어긋난다고 주장하는 소송에서 일반 납세자의 원고적격을 부인한 것이다. 이는 Flast 판결이 종교재단 지원 예산지출에 대하여 일반 납세자의 원고적격을 인정한 것과 대비되는 것으로, Flast 판결의 원고적격 법리를 형해화하였다고 평가받는다. Thompson 판결은 원고적격을 인정 기준으로 헌법 제3조 상의 사실상의 침해요건과 법률이 보호하는 이익의 중간인, 이익의 범위 기준을 취하고 있다. American Bottom Conservancy 판결은 단체의 원고적격에 관한 것으로서 이론보다는 실제적으로 원고적격을 결정한다. 사법심사범위에 관한 Judlang 판결은 Chevron 존중의 2단계 심사가 전단자의 금지 심사와 실질적으로 동일하다는 결론을 내린다. Home Concrete 판결은 이전의 법원에서 Chevron 존중을 받은 해석을 행정부가 바꿀 수 있는가 하는 문제를 다룬 것으로서, 종전의 해석이 모호한 법률조항을 대상으로 하였을 때만 그러하다는 Brand-X 판결을 변용시켰다. Home Concrete 판결은 법률조항이 모호하더라도, 그 해석이 Chevron 판결 이전에 있었다면 법률조항의 명료/불명료로써 그 변경가능성을 기준할 수 없다고 하여, Chevron존중 법리를 변화시켰다. Christopher 판결은 행정부가 자신의 규정을 해석하면 특별한 잘못이 없는 경우 존중한다는 Auer 존중을 다룬 것으로서, 이 경우에도 사전에 경고되지 않으면 그러하지 않다고 판단하였다. Electronic Privacy Information Center 판결은 항공기 탑승을 위한 검색을 자석식에서 영상식으로 바꾸는 규칙에 대하여 사생활을 침해하는 것이므로 절차적 규칙이 아니라 실체적 규칙이며 고지의견제출절차가 필요하다고 하였다. 이상의 판례는 원고적격이나 사법심사의 범위를 좀 더 실제적으로 구체적이고 타당성있게 풀어나가는 노력으로 보이며, 이러한 유연성이 한국 행정법에도 도입될 필요가 있다고 보인다.

This article analyzes the most important administrative law cases during the 2011 term of U.S. Supreme Court(here the cases). They are selected on the base of citation number of law review and westlaw. It argues that Chevron deference has continued to transform from the analysis of statutory ambiguity into more emphasizing of delegation, that there have been many politicized cases which were decided upon judge's political beliefs, and that the contention that there should be a place for politics in arbitrary and capricious review has gained strength recently. Then, it reviews the cases. Nnebe held that due process clause did not require pre-suspension hearing, if post-hearing is provided, while the post-suspension hearing with 100 % dismissal might not be adequate to provide due process. Winn held that the tax payer does not have standing for Arizona's tax credit scheme for funding private schools, concluding that an injury is "generalized" rather than "particularized", since granting a tax credit to X does not extract anything at all from Y. Thompson held that an "aggrieved" person under Title VII includes any person with an interest arguably sought to be protected. American Bottom Conservancy held that the organization alleged sufficient injury to establish standing to sue, which should be determined according to the practical basis. Judlang recognized that the analysis according to the "impermissible" standard under second step of Chevron deference would be the same as that according to the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. Home Concrete held that the Treasury Department regulations that ran contrary to earlier Supreme Court precedent in Colony can not be deferred, despite of that the earlier court had found the relevant language unambiguous. Home Concrete limits and betters the Brand-X analysis by eschewing rigid adherence to previous assessment of statutory ambiguity. Christopher endorsed much of recent criticism of Auer deference by refusing to defer to an agency's interpretation of a regulation when it is not committed to fair notice for regulated entities. Electronic Privacy Information Center found that the severity of the body scan intrusion on privacy was sufficient to preclude reliance on the procedural exception. All these cases show that the scope of judicial review or standing is solved practically, rather than ideologically, and therefore flexible. This article argues that the Korean Administrative Law also has to be more practical and flexible than ever.

This article analyzes the most important administrative law cases during the 2011 term of U.S. Supreme Court(here the cases). They are selected on the base of citation number of law review and westlaw. It argues that Chevron deference has continued to transform from the analysis of statutory ambiguity into more emphasizing of delegation, that there have been many politicized cases which were decided upon judge's political beliefs, and that the contention that there should be a place for politics in arbitrary and capricious review has gained strength recently. Then, it reviews the cases. Nnebe held that due process clause did not require pre-suspension hearing, if post-hearing is provided, while the post-suspension hearing with 100 % dismissal might not be adequate to provide due process. Winn held that the tax payer does not have standing for Arizona's tax credit scheme for funding private schools, concluding that an injury is "generalized" rather than "particularized", since granting a tax credit to X does not extract anything at all from Y. Thompson held that an "aggrieved" person under Title VII includes any person with an interest arguably sought to be protected. American Bottom Conservancy held that the organization alleged sufficient injury to establish standing to sue, which should be determined according to the practical basis. Judlang recognized that the analysis according to the "impermissible" standard under second step of Chevron deference would be the same as that according to the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. Home Concrete held that the Treasury Department regulations that ran contrary to earlier Supreme Court precedent in Colony can not be deferred, despite of that the earlier court had found the relevant language unambiguous. Home Concrete limits and betters the Brand-X analysis by eschewing rigid adherence to previous assessment of statutory ambiguity. Christopher endorsed much of recent criticism of Auer deference by refusing to defer to an agency's interpretation of a regulation when it is not committed to fair notice for regulated entities. Electronic Privacy Information Center found that the severity of the body scan intrusion on privacy was sufficient to preclude reliance on the procedural exception. All these cases show that the scope of judicial review or standing is solved practically, rather than ideologically, and therefore flexible. This article argues that the Korean Administrative Law also has to be more practical and flexible than ever.

due process, Chevron deference, Auer deference, tax payer standing, zone of interest, notice and comment procedure