Faculty in the News
Christopher J. Walker Media Hits
The following is a list of selected media coverage for Christopher J. Walker. The links below will direct you to sites that are not affiliated with the Moritz College of Law. They are subject to change, and some may expire or require registration as time passes.
Professor Chris Walker was quoted in The Columbus Dispatch about upcoming changes to Columbus City Council that stem from a new charter amendment. In the past, city council members have faced criticism for being appointed to their seats and for running for re-election as incumbents.
“You might like the outcomes, but it’s not a process you would think of being representative of the whole city,” Walker said. “It’s really hard to beat an incumbent.”
A post co-authored by Professor Chris Walker and Melissa F. Wasserman, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, about their forthcoming article in the California Law Review was featured on the blog, Patently-O.
“In 2011, Congress created a series of novel proceedings for private parties to challenge issued patents before the newly formed Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB),” they write. “While the PTAB proceedings are immensely popular, they have also been controversial.”
A forthcoming article by Professor Chris Walker about judicial deference was quoted in The Regulatory Review.
Recognizing ‘a growing call to eliminate—or at least narrow—administrative law’s judicial deference doctrines regarding agency interpretations of law,’ Walker assesses recent arguments against Chevron and a related doctrine known as Auerin an effort to help ‘judges, legislators, litigants, and scholars better focus arguments for reforming how federal courts review agency interpretations of law,’” Justin S. Daniel of The Regulatory Review writes.
Professor Chris Walker was mentioned in Cleveland.com. Walker was picked to join a 28-member bipartisan commission that will make recommendations for filling two vacant federal judge seats in Ohio.
An op-ed by Professor Chris Walker about why the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 is needed to modernize the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) appeared in The Regulatory Review.
“It has been over 20 years since Congress amended the APA at all—a FOIA modernization amendment in 1996—and about 40 years since the last significant statutory change. Modernization of the APA is needed. And the current political climate may present an ideal opportunity for such bipartisan legislative action,” Walker writes. “Like the APA itself, the Regulatory Accountability Act is the product of bipartisan compromise. Indeed, this legislation is what bipartisan regulatory reform should look like.”
Professor Chris Walker was quoted in Bloomberg about the policies introduced during the Obama administration -- especially pertaining to health care, the environment, and the financial industry -- that could be reversed after Donald Trump assumes office.
"I don’t think the entire Obama legacy is going to be undone in a month, but there’s a chance for some pretty substantial chipping away of his hallmark legislation," Walker said. "A fair amount of these rules could be unwound pretty quickly."
Professor Chris Walker was quoted in a Bloomberg BNA piece on SCOTUS:
"While the case has significant implications for the millions of immigrants potentially affected by DAPA, the court's decision could also 'have a dramatic effect on our modern regulatory state that would extend far beyond the important executive action on immigration actually at issue in this case,' Ohio State University Moritz College of Law's Chris Walker, Columbus, Ohio, told Bloomberg BNA April 9.
'There are at least four questions presented in the case, all of which could have profound effects on other executive actions,' Walker, who writes for the ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice's blog, said."
Professor Chris Walker was mentioned in a Bloomberg BNA article about the experience of waiting on line to see U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments live:
"It was 3:30 a.m. on a cool Monday morning in February, and I was getting up for work. 'How did I get into this?' I asked myself.
I was pretty sure it was all Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Chris Walker’s fault."
Ohio Expert Weighs In on Clash Over SCOTUS Nomination - See more at: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-02-17/budget-policy-and-priorities/ohio-expert-weighs-in-on-clash-over-scotus-nomination/a50420-1#sthash.GpDDWe7b.dpufFebruary 17, 2016
Public News Service spoke with Professor Chris Walker on the clash over the SCOTUS nomination:
Chris Walker, an assistant law professor at Ohio State University who clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, said he believes that whatever happens will raise the stakes in the presidential election dramatically.
"Even if the justice is confirmed before the election, it's going to be on the minds of the electorate of who this next president's going to be," he said. "We'll likely have at least another one or two appointments to the court, and these appointments last for decades."
- See more at: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-02-17/budget-policy-and-priorities/ohio-expert-weighs-in-on-clash-over-scotus-nomination/a50420-1#sthash.GpDDWe7b.dpuf
Professor Chris Walker spoke with Columbus, Ohio's WSYX ABC 6 about the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:
"He's an incredible writer with a lot of sarcasm and wit," said Chris Walker, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2008 and 2009. "To lose someone like that is a huge loss at least intellectually on the court."
Professor Chris Walker spoke with Columbus, Ohio's NBC 4 about the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:
“The loss of Scalia is huge. He was such a huge figure on the court. I think he’s one of most transformative justices we’ve ever had,” said Chris Walker, Assistant Professor at OSU’s Moritz College of Law.
Professor Chris Walker was featured in a Federal News Radio segment on the role federal agencies play in law making. Walker recently wrote a report to the Administrative Conference of the United States on the subject.
Professor Chris Walker's blog post on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell, which upheld the government’s regulation interpreting the Affordable Care Act to allow for tax subsidies in healthcare exchanges established by the federal government, was mentioned in an article that appeared in the New Republic.
“King v. Burwell—while a critical win for the Obama Administration—is a judicial power grab over the Executive in the modern administrative state," he wrote.
Professor Chris Walker was quoted in an article in Business Insider Australia on the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell to uphold a key provision of the of the Affordable Care Act that allows the federal government to distribute subsidies to help low-income Americans buy health insurance.
“Because the Court has provided its own, definitive interpretation of the ambiguous statute — and held that it will not defer to the agency’s interpretation — a subsequent presidential administration (say, a Republican Administration) cannot reinterpret the statutory provision to prohibit tax subsidies in exchanges established by the Federal Government,” Walker said.
Cleveland's victory in Supreme Court reinforces home rule, but it's not a breakthrough for cities, expert saysFebruary 4, 2014
Professor Chistopher Walker was quoted in an article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer about a recent ruling in the Ohio Supreme Court. Some believe the ruling is a breakthrough for home rule powers, but legal experts, including Walker, do not think the ruling will have much of an effect.
”Is it a win for the city?” he asked. ”You could imagine a different world where the court just said ‘Hey, once the state announces a law in any general area, the cities cannot have any role,’ “
Professor Christopher Walker's report titled "The Importance of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Financial Regulation" was quoted in an article in The Financial. "Financial regulators, especially in the context of Dodd-Frank, can and should ground their rulemaking in robust cost-benefit analysis in order to arrive at more rational decision-making and efficient regulatory action as well as to promote good governance and democratic accountability,” wrote (Paul) Rose and Walker in the report. “The SEC’s experience with cost-benefit analysis, both in court and also in practice, provides an important lesson for other financial regulators."
Professor Christopher Walker was a source for a piece by business news site Business Insider addressing the likelihood that the Supreme Court of the United States would limit affirmative action through its ruling in a case challenging The University of Texas at Austin's admissions policy.
"At least four Supreme Court justices decided to review the Fifth Court decision that upheld UT's affirmative action policy. It's not too common for the high court to review a decision just to affirm it, former Supreme Court clerk Christopher Walker pointed out to Business Insider," the piece stated.
Assistant Professor Christopher Walker was quoted in a National Journal article about the Supreme Court preparing for its decision on the health care law, which came to a ruling June 28.
"It would be really surprising if there would be changes at this point — we’re three days away," Walker said. "It’s not like they’re changing their minds about how they are going to vote."
Professor and former Supreme Court clerk Chris Walker was interviewed on On The Record w/ Greta VanSusteren about the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the federal health care law.
"So tomorrow, the Justices are going to conference. It's a private conference with just the Justices at which they'll cast a preliminary vote, a straw vote," Walker explained.
Professor and former Supreme Court clerk Chris Walker was interviewed on National Public Radio about the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the federal health care law.
"So they'll meet - I think Friday they have a conference shortly after arguments and they go around the table and say which way they would vote and why. Each justice will express his or her view on how the case should be decided," Walker said. "And then, from there, they'll, you know, decide based on who's in the majority. The most senior justice will assign that opinion to one of the other justices or to himself and the majority."