The article is called “A Day Late and a Dollar Short: Section 2719 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Interpretation of its Exceptions and the Part 292 Regulations,” 12 T.M. Cooley J. Prac. & Clinical L. 147 (2010), and concerns regulations about which lands tribes may operate casinos on. Here’s a one paragraph excerpt from the Introduction:
“The DOI’s Regulations, which impose added burdens on tribes and narrow the exceptions, impair the settled expectations of tribes and businesses. Moreover, this impairment may persist because the Supreme Court’s holding in Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., requires courts to defer to agencies, despite having been the first to interpret and define statutes. However, because of the difference of circumstances, unlike in Brand X, the DOI’s interpretations should not be deferred to. Chevron deference, as applied in Brand X, may unconstitutionally reallocate authority from Article III to Article II. Lastly, the discipline of law and economics tells us that the Regulations’ changes and the majority’s opinion in Brand X promulgates an inefficient legal rule that may be-and should be-changed.”
Turtle Talk 