►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
E
G
A
H
I
A
A
G
Thank
you
very
much
kaija
good
morning,
everyone
and
thank
you
for
joining
the
meeting
this
morning
and
for
your
service
on
the
judicial
review
committee
or
your
interest
in
it,
if
you're
not
actually
on
the
committee.
A
special
thanks
of
course
go
to
goes
to
our
chair
for
her
many
contributions
to
this
committee
and
to
ages.
I've
been
chair
now
for
a
little
over
six
months
and
have
been
learning
so
much.
C
G
The
other
four
and
and
as
we
should,
that
is
at
least
partially
due.
We
think,
to
the
to
the
nature
of
the
subject
matter
of
judicial
review,
but
today
we'll
be
asking
you
to
do
three
things.
The
first
is
to
consider
an
idea
for
a
project
for
you
that
Jeremy
will
be
presenting
next.
Is
we
ask
you
to
please
share
any
suggestions
you
might
have
for
other
projects.
G
J
Thanks
so
much
Andy
and
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
be
here
so
I
need
to
start
off
by
reminding
every
one
of
our
standard
meeting
protocols.
Please
remember
that
only
acus
members,
and
that
includes
government
members,
public
members,
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsels,
as
well
as
their
designated
alternates,
whether
or
not
they're
on
the
committee
all
have
full
speaking
privileges.
J
To
avoid
background
noise,
though
I'd
ask
that
you
keep
your
microphone
on
mute
and
either
use
zoom's
hand
raised
feature
or
add
a
comment
in
the
chat
feature.
If
you
would
like
to
speak,
I
will
then
call
on
you
and
you
can
unmute
yourself
and
please
then
re-mute
yourself
when
you're
done.
I
would
also
ask
that
acus
members
and
their
designated
alternates
use
the
webcam
to
the
extent
that
they
can
to
facilitate
conversation,
although
I
also
recognize
that
with
everybody
using
webcam,
sometimes
for
some
people
that
can
cause
connectivity
issues.
J
So
just
everyone
do
your
best,
please,
with
respect
to
attendees
other
than
acus
members
and
alternates
participation
requires
the
unanimous
consent
of
the
committee
members.
If
there's
time
permitting,
then
I
will
consider
calling
on
those
attendees
at
appropriate
points
and
we'll
presume
that
committee
members
consent
abs,
absent
anyone
raising
an
objection
if
any
such
participant
would
like
to
speak
again,
please
indicate
as
much
in
the
chat
feature
or
by
using
zoom's
hand,
raise
feature
and
wait
to
speak
until
I
can
call
on
you.
J
You
can
then
unmute
yourself
and
please
remute
yourself
when
you
are
done
speaking
for
all
participants.
Please
use
the
chat
feature
only
to
indicate
that
you
would
like
to
speak
or
for
committee
members
in
their
alternates.
If
we
have
any
votes
for
any
reason
to
vote
when
you're
asked
to
do
so,
please
do
not
hold
any
sidebar
discussions
or
put
substantive
comments
in
the
chat
feature.
J
J
F
J
L
L
Anecdotally,
there's
been
a
fair
amount
of
litigation
in
recent
years
in
which
parties
awaiting
adjudication,
particularly
in
backlogged
high
volume
programs,
have
relied
on
the
APA
mandamus
act
or
similar
authorities
to
request
that
courts
compel
agencies
to
decide
their
cases.
Several
professional
associations,
for
example,
have
published
guides
to
assist
attorneys
in
filing
immigration,
related
delay,
actions
in
federal
district
courts.
L
Based
on
my
quick
and
highly
unscientific
analysis,
district
courts
Nationwide
seem
to
be
deciding
between
one
and
two
dozen
unreasonable
delay
cases
each
month.
The
majority
in
recent
years
involved
the
various
immigration
agencies,
but
they've
also
been
claims
involving
veterans
benefits.
Medicare
appeals,
Social,
Security
claims,
Etc
acus
traditionally
doesn't
make
recommendations
to
individual
judges,
of
course.
So
what
might
a
project
look
like
in
this
space?
A
project
could
look
at
claims
of
unreasonably
delayed
actions,
including
rulemakings,
or
it
could
focus
more
narrowly
on
adjudications
or
some
subset
of
adjudications.
L
It
might
look
at
the
prevalence
of
those
claims
how
courts
consider
them
the
rates
at
which
plaintiffs
are
successful.
Consistency
among
District
Court
judgments
under
the
current
regime
and
the
types
of
remedies
that
courts
can
provide
in
such
circumstances
as
appropriate.
A
recommendation
might
address
potential
reforms
in
the
law
to
clarify
a
the
duty
agency's
owed
to
applicants
or
other
parties
and
agency
adjudications
to
conclude
matters
in
a
reasonable
time.
J
Okay
again,
if
you
would
like
to
weigh
into
the
discussion,
then
please
raise
your
hand
or
signal
using
the
raise
hand,
function
or
signal
me
in
the
chat
Jeremy.
Could
you
let
me
ask
the
question:
can
you
elaborate
and
then
I'll
call
on
John
Siegel?
Could
you
elaborate
a
little
bit
about
that
1978
recommendation
and
what
all
it
addressed.
L
So
it
basically
took
the
stance
that
the
apa's
provisions
governing
unreasonable
delays,
weren't
working
very
well
in
under
various
statutory
screens
regimes
Congress
had
imposed
time
limits
on
agency
actions.
You
know
issue
a
rule
in
x.
Amount
of
time
decide
a
case
in
X
number
of
days
those
sorts
of
things
that
recommendation
looked
at
those
Provisions
weighed
in
and
sort
of
devised
principles
for
when
time
limits
in
statutes
would
be
appropriate
and
when
they
might
be
inappropriate.
J
C
E
A
E
I
They
can
only
give
themselves
an
extension
of
another
10
days,
so
they're
supposed
to
decide
for
a
requests
in
20
days
And.
Yet
when
someone
went
to
court
and
said
you
know,
I,
it's
been
months
and
I
have
no
decision
on
my
foia
request.
I
forget
which
circuit
I
think
DC.
They
said
well
we're
not
going
to
order
the
agency
to
move
you
up
in
the
queue,
because
that
would
just
disadvantage
everybody
else
in
the
queue.
I
If
the
reason
for
the
delay
was,
we
just
have
too
much
in
the
queue
and
everybody's
waiting
their
turn
in
the
queue
so
I
mean
I.
Think
that
issue
has
been
dealt
with
now.
You
know
it's
not
a
very
satisfactory
solution
and
maybe
Aegis
would
have
something
to
say
about
it,
but
that
that's
what
comes
to
mind
on
that
point
and
then
the
other
just
sort
of
General
reaction,
I
have
is
I.
Think
we
want
to
think
about
who
the
recommendation
is
to
as
I
think
back
over
our
recommendations.
I
You
know
how
often
do
we
say
is:
is
the
idea
that
the
recommendation
would
take
the
form
here's,
how
courts
should
implement
the
unreasonable
delay
provision,
because
I
think
you
know
more
frequently
our
recommendations
are
not
here's.
How
courts
should
interpret
this
piece
of
Statute.
It's
more
like
here
are
best
practices
and
here's
how
we
could
improve
the
the
process
of
judicial
review,
so
I
think
we
just
want
to
think
carefully
about
who
the
recommendation
would
be
to.
K
When
I
first
pick
up
on
Sean's
comment
about
foia
I
would
suggest
that
if
we
proceed
with
this
project,
we
not
include
foia
in
the
scope
of
the
research,
because
judges
sort
of
universally
don't
like
foia
similar
to
agencies,
so
the
deadlines
are
meaningless.
We
even
had
cases
where
the
court,
whether
the
agency
granted
Expedition
and
the
flood
requests
in
the
court,
didn't
care
that
nothing
came
like
there
was
no
expedited
treatment.
K
My
main
question,
as
I
listened
to
Jeremy's
description
is:
is
there
a
is
in
your
review
of
the
dozens
of
cases
that
you
say
are
filed?
Is
there
some
like?
Is
there
a
problem
that
that
we've
seen
that
we're
that
we
want
to
address
or
like
if
the
to
my
knowledge,
the
track
factors
are
some
more
or
less
the
way
courts
approach
this
and
there's
not
a
lot
of
disagreement
about
how
to
approach
these
cases,
so
is
there
actually
is
I,
mean
I,
don't
mind
someone
studying
it
I
just
think.
L
L
You
have
lots
of
people
who
are
waiting
for
decisions
in
cases
predominantly
in
the
immigration
area,
but
not
exclusively
also
in
several
other
benefits
regimes.
They
are
then,
turning
to
the
courts,
basically
demanding
that
agencies
decide
their
cases
and
I
think
quite
often
losing
meaning
they're
receiving
unsatisfactory
results
and
perhaps
clogging
up
the
courts
with
cases
that
they
were
never
going
to
win
anyway.
I.
Imagine
that's
not
an
optimal
regime
for
agencies
for
courts
or
for
litigants
who
want
their
cases
decided.
L
J
So
Alan
Morrison
is
next
in
the
queue,
but
let
me
make
one
observation:
slash
raise
a
question
myself.
It
strikes
me
you
know,
and
and
John
and
Allison
both
have
sort
of
alluded
to
this
somewhat.
It
strikes
me
that
in
some
instances,
agency
delays
are
directly
attributable
to
you
know
it
two
different
sorts
of
resource
questions.
You
know
one
being
a
congressional
Appropriations
issue.
J
J
Have
you
seen
a
subset
of
cases
that
suggest
that
there
is
a
third
box
that
we
might
address
because
I'm
not
sure
that
I
feel
like
our
committee,
can
weigh
in
very
well
on
Congressional,
Appropriations
or
resource
allocations?
Maybe
we
can,
but
you
know,
I,
guess
you
know
it's
more,
that
third
box,
that
I'm
not
sure
what
fills
it.
That
I'd
be
curious
about
yeah.
L
L
J
B
So
I
have
three
comments.
First,
the
Jeremy
suggested
both
the
individual
adjudication,
as
in
the
mainly
I
think
they're
mainly
Asylum
cases
is
that
right,
Jeremy
yeah,
correct
Simon,
because
nobody's
actually
nobody's
complaining
about
the
backlog
of
deportation
cases.
That's
the
first
so
and
that's
a
very
different
problem
from
the
kind
of
problem
that
Allison
and
I
have
seen
it
with
agencies,
refusing
to
act
on
petitions
for
rulemaking,
and
things
like
that,
and
so
I
I'm
not
opposed
to
putting
them
in,
but
they
seem
to
be
entirely
different
kind
of
problems.
B
Okay,
the
second
thing
is:
I:
I
haven't
looked
at
it
in
a
while,
but
for
many
years
there
was
an
issue
about
which
court,
the
district
court
or
the
court
of
appeals
agency,
unreasonable
delay
should
go
to
and
I,
don't
know
whether
that
issue
has
been
resolved
satisfactory.
But
if
not,
it's
certainly
worth
something.
B
Taking
a
look
at
anyway-
and
the
third
point
I
have
is
that
on
the
individual
agency,
Asylum
adjudications
I,
wonder
whether
part
of
the
problem
is
that
nobody
higher
up
in
the
agency
is
paying
any
attention
to
how
the
resources
are
being
allocated
and
whether
I
I
don't
want
to
call
it
an
administrative
exhaustion
of
Remedies
or
an
opportunity
for
an
internal
appeal
to
a
grown-up
in
the
agency.
That
might
might
be
something
that
we
could
could
look
at.
B
Consider
it
it
may
be
worth
something
thinking
about
at
least
I,
don't
know
whether
come
to
a
recommendation
or
not,
but
as
I
was
sitting
here
listening
to
it,
it
seemed
to
me
to
be
that
that's
a
problem
and
I
I
know
that
there
are
these.
These
Asylum
adjudications
are
coming
up
all
the
time,
and
the
judges
just
have
to
deal
with
them.
They
order
show
cause
why
they
won't
do
it
and-
and
you
know,
there's
a
resource
problem
anyway.
Thank
you.
H
H
If
there's
too
much
of
a
wait
and
then
they
just
come
right
to
us,
that
might
not
be
a
great
solution
for
everything
for
Asylum
cases,
things
like
that,
but
for
these
sort
of
business
type
cases
or
project
type
cases
that
might
be
one
way
to
you
know
one
suggestion
it
seems
pretty
effective.
Sometimes
we
get
these
applications
that
hey
it's
taking
even
too
long.
H
It's
not
even
being
denied
there's
too
many
extensions
and
then
we're
back
in
sort
of
order
to
show
cause
land
if
they've
missed
a
statutory
deadline,
and
the
excuse
is
always
resource
for
what
it's
worth
so
just
throw
that
out
there,
because
our
court
sees
this
in
a
different
perspective
from
a
different
perspective
from
time
to
time.
Hope
that's
helpful.
D
C
Thank
you
very
much
Kristen
in
listening
to
the
discussion
it.
It
makes
me
think
that
maybe
we
need
to
do
a
preliminary
project
to
to
look
into
the
area
and
characterize
where
the
problems
are.
If
there
are
problems
and
come
back
with
a
specific
recommendation,
we
did
this
recently
in
a
project
that
a
co-author
and
I
did
that
went
through
a
different
committee.
We
did
a
a
short
project
just
to
make
sure
there
really
was
a
an
issue
there
that
we
could.
We
could
address.
C
That
was
an
office
of
the
chair
project
and
I
I
believe
that
there
are
several
other
instances
that
people
brought
to
my
attention
of
where
committees
have
done
a
preliminary
project
to
look
into
an
area
far
enough
to
assure
itself
that
there
really
is
a
project
there.
So
I
would
recommend
that
that
might
be
a
way
of
dealing
with
some
of
the
issues
that
other
people
have
raised.
M
J
J
You
know,
judge,
Ramel
and
Boris
both
have
suggested
the
possibility
of
you
know
one
possible
remedy
that
might
be
reasonable
in
some
instances
you
know.
One
thing
that
might
be
interesting
would
be
to
think
about
and
and
I'm,
not
sure,
I'm
not
sure
to
what
extent
suggesting
possible
judicial
remedies
Falls
within
our
bailiwick,
but
on
the
other
hand,
that
does
strike
me
as
if
we
could
come
up
with
if
we
could
draw
from
existing
cases
to
suggest
a
menu
of
possible
remedies.
C
C
I
I
think
the
listening,
both
to
your
comments
and
comments
of
others
that
we
might
want
to
consider
looking
into
the
general
area
of
Remedies
and
administrative
law
cases
that
used
to
be
pretty
cut
and
dried,
but
I
think
there
have
been
a
number
of
interesting
developments.
Reman
without
vacation
is
certainly
one
of
them.
There
was
a
suggestion
by
the
solicitor
general
in
the
Supreme
Court
the
other
day
that
perhaps
injunctions
were
were
not.
E
D
D
He
said
literally,
it
means
to
set
it
aside,
not
to
vacate
it
nationwide
and
that's
what
God,
Justice
chief
justice
Roberts,
commenting
that
when
he
was
on
the
DC
circuit,
they
would
do
vacay
quote
five
times
before
breakfast
end
quote
and
and
when
she
says
well
you're,
you
all
got
it
wrong.
He
commented
that
was
wow.
D
He
said
so
it's
it's
without
I
think
it
have
to
be
looked
at
again
depending
upon
what
the
court
rules,
but
the
SG
was
kind
of
picking
up
what
we
recommended
that
it's
an
equitable
remedy.
We
Man
Without
vacator,
but
obviously
that's
contrary
to
what
the
practice
was
by
most
of
the
DC
circuit
case
and
by
the
way
I'm
going
to
have
to
leave.
Unfortunately,
so
thank
you
very
much.
K
I
wanted
to
speak
in
favor
of
not
doing
a
recommendation
on
research
on
weekend
with
vacator.
The
the
dispute
between
the
SG
and
private
litigants
is
about
whether
the
APA
gives
the
power
to
vacate
and
the
sg's
argument
is
based
on
it's.
You
know
the
meaning
of
set
aside
and
some
sparse
legislative
history
and
I'm
just
not
sure
what
we
could
study
about
it
or
recommend
like
we
recommend
reading
language
the
way
the
SG
does,
or
we
recommend
not
reading
the
language.
K
The
way
that
SG
does
also
seems,
like
all
the
government
members
of
acus,
would
sort
of
be
obligated
to
vote
against
any
recommendation
that
that
we
acknowledge
that
the
APA
allows
for
vacator
of
unlawful
agency
action
and
I
think
the
rest
of
us
might
as
privately
against
might
feel
like.
We
would
want
to
read
it
the
opposite
way,
but
it's
it's
just
sort
of
like
what
is
the
statutory
language
means
it's
a
little
bit
hard
for
I.
Think
for
a
a
recommendation.
K
There's
also
a
ton
written
about
it
now
because,
although
it
didn't
necessarily
have
to
be
raised
by
the
SG
in
the
fine
versus
Texas
Supreme
Court
briefing,
it
was,
and
so
there
was
there's
there's
been
a
lot
written
about
it.
But
I
think
it's
just
hard
to
do
a
recommendation.
When
the
answer
is
read
the
statutory
language
as
X
or
not
X,.
F
So
that
was
a
fascinating
oral
argument
and
though
a
lot
has
been
written
about
it,
I
I
can
assure
you
that
more
is
going
to
be
written
about
this
question
in
the
future.
But
I
I
was
more
just
raising
my
hand
to
say
to
Donald
Elliott
that
there's
also
this
project
that
I've
been
working
on
with
Zach
Clapton
and
with
Judd
stiglitz,
which
is
I,
think
Jeremy.
F
So
that's
just
something
that's
relevant
to
remedies
into
this
to
this
larger
question
of
universal
vacator
and
Nationwide
injunctions
that
that
project
is
ongoing
and
we've
been
very
fortunate
to
have
akas's
help
with
with
that
and
with
and
the
cooperation
and
the
encouragement
of
many
members
of
the
the
federal
government's
different
agencies.
So
that's
just
that
that
is
something
that
I
just
wanted
to
flag
as
a
ongoing
effort.
J
I
This
isn't
a
project
suggestion,
but
I
just
thought.
The
members
of
the
committee
would
be
interested
to
know
that
I've
received
inquiries
over
the
last
couple
of
months
from
a
Judiciary
Committee
staffer
in
the
Senate
who's
working
on
a
bill
to
implement
the
last
recommendation
that
came
from
this
committee.
The
clarifying
access
to
judicial
review
recommendation
and
I
I
think
he's
also
been
in
touch
with
Ron
Levin,
so
I
just
thought
people
would
be
interested
to
help
there.
J
J
J
A
J
J
K
Well
now
people
speak
about,
you
can
just
go
to
Texas
and
you
don't
have
to
go
around
the
country,
but
it
did
used
to
be
that
people
would
file
in
different
places
around
the
country
like
Department
of
Labor,
so
I
do
shiary
rule
that
was
upheld
by
three
district
courts
and
then
lost
in
one
in
that,
and
that
was
sort
of
dividend.
So
so
people
have
suggested
some
different
ideas
that
I
think
are
just
sort
of
thrown
out
there
without
well.
Maybe
there's
more
discussion
about
it
than
I
realized.
K
Maybe
some
of
the
professors
would
know
more,
but
I
wonder
if
there's
room
for
a
consideration
of
ideas
for
doing
something
more
like
with
OSHA.
Where
there's
you
know,
you
have
a
certain
number
of
days
to
challenge
a
a
new
standard
and
then
they
all
get
channeled
to
one
Court
for
some
further
consideration
of
why
we
sometimes
by
some
stats,
should
start
in
the
courts
of
appeals
and
some
starts
in
the
district
court.
Maybe
we
have
some
recommendation
for
more
going
to
the
courts
of
appeals.
E
Thanks
Kristen
first
I
will
just
mention
in
passing:
I'll
confirm
what
John
Siegel
said
about
consideration
of
the
bill
that
our
committee
recommended
to
to
Congress
I've
had
some
conversations,
but
things
are
very
tentative.
I
can't
say
more
at
this
point,
but
you
know
things
might
happen
on
the
point
being
raised
I,
you
know,
I've
been
giving
some
thought
to
problems
in
this
area
and
also
by
another
digression.
E
Allison
wrote
a
really
fine
brief
in
the
in
the
Texas
case,
which
would
commend
Ed
people's
attention
if
they're
interested
in
that
issue,
so
I
think
the
Forum
Shopping
issue
is
real
and
part
of
it.
I
think
is
a
question
of
how
revelry
Universal
injunctions
are
granted
by
courts.
I,
don't
know
that
we
can
advise
them
doctrinally
on
that
point.
Another
related
to
it
is
the
question
of
how
often
they
Grant
stays.
E
E
So
it's
it's
not
the
same
as
where
you
have
two
challengers
in
different
venues.
It's
it's
people
who
are
challenging
a
room
and
people
who
support
the
rule.
I,
don't
know
they
can
use
the
race
of
the
courthouse
structure,
but
there
might
be
some
way
to
encourage
change
of
the
venue
by
somebody
some
kind
of
appeal
from
filing
in
a
district
court
where
it
seems
expeditious
to
a
court
of
appeals.
Maybe
the
judicial
panel
on
multivit
District
litigation
can
get
involved.
E
B
Along
those
lines,
the
other
possibility,
I've
thought
about
is
require
going
back
to
the
old
three
judge,
Court
statutes,
which
required
any
kind
of
an
injunction
against
the
federal
law.
But
it
was
particularly
Federal
statutes
acquired
a
three
judge,
Court
and
that
could
be
done
along
with
something
along
the
lines.
Ron
suggests.
If
there
are
multiple,
multiple
challenges
are
made
around
the
country
and
and
the
three
judge
Court
would
necessarily
have
to
be
from
the
circuit
but
and
the
it
would
it
would
apply.
B
It
would
be
precluded
from
seeking
a
an
injunction
beyond
the
name
parties
unless
you
ask
for
a
three-judge
court
and
three,
only
three
judge,
Court
good
issue
and
then
has
a
direct
appeal
to
the
Supreme
Court
is
what
the
law
used
to
be
until
it
got.
The
Supreme
Court
got
tired
of
hearing
all
these
cases,
but
they
now
seem
to
be
hearing
them
all
anyway
on
on
stays
and
Shadow
calendars,
Shadow
docket,
so
but
I
I.
B
Guess
we
we're
still
awaiting
the
final
report
from
from
Neil's
group
about
the
extent
to
which
these
are
a
problem.
I
mean
one
thing:
we've
learned
is
that's
not
just
against
the
Republicans
and
and
it's
now
against
the
Democrats,
and
so
it's
an
equal
opportunity,
abuser
and,
and
so
we
we
have
at
least
know
it.
Now
that
that's
the
case
I
mean
like.
Can
you
tell
us
how
you're
doing
on
your
report
and
or
was
that
supposed
to
come
up
later
in
our
discussion
here.
F
J
K
So
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
bring
together
Allen's
and
your
comments,
and
what
I
was
suggesting
is.
These
are
all
possible
ways
to
deal
with
some
of
the
underlying
concerns
that
cause
people
to
question
what
we
thought
were
basic,
well-established
APA
remedies,
and
so
what
the
researcher
would
would
start
by
looking
at
the
criticisms
of
the
universal
remedy
to
see,
if
they're,
you
know,
there's
their
sort
of
policy
or
outcome
criticisms
to
see.
K
If
there
are
legal
remedies
for
these
criticisms
and-
and
maybe
it
would
turn
out
that
a
three
judge
panel
makes
sense
for
more
statutory
view
or
some
subset,
like
you
know,
the
OSHA
or
Nitsa
cases
go
straight
to
the
court
of
appeals
against
C
cases,
but
cfpb
cases
go
to
the.
If
it
still
exists
goes
to
the
district
court
like
is
that
the
should
more
of
them
go
to
the
courts
of
appeals?
Would
that
solve
a
problem?
Should
some
do
three
judge
panels?
K
H
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
looked
at
at
one
time
was
whether
there
should
be
a
law
that
it
should
go.
The
Congressional
subpoena
to
an
executive
branch
agency
should
go
to
a
three-judge
panel
and
then
straight
to
the
Supreme
Court,
because
it's
two
branches
of
government,
two
co-equal
branches
and
it
gives
the
agencies
more
certainty.
H
It
gives
Congress
more
certainty
and
there's
pros
and
cons
to
that
and
obviously
you
know
it
may
decrease
the
incentive
to
use
non-judicial
tools
in
the
accommodation
process
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
I
just
suggested,
because
we
were
talking
about
three
judge
panels
and
just
reminded
me
of
you
know
the
struggle
of
dealing
between
the
two
branches
with
Congressional
subpoenas
to
agencies
so
I,
throw
it
out.
There
feel
free
to
knock
it
down.
If
you
want,
but
I
thought
it
was
an
interesting
issue.
M
J
J
A
Conveniently
Mila
is
on
this
call,
so
she
gave
a
wonderful
update
on
the
Nationwide
injunctions
project,
which
we
were
going
to
do
as
well.
So
I
just
recommend
that
everybody
take
a
look
at
that
I
think
it's.
You
know
relevant
to
some
of
the
work
that
the
judicial
review
committee
has
done
two
other
projects
that
we
also
wanted
to
make
sure
we're
on
your
radar
was
the
timing
of
judicial
review
of
agency
action
study.
A
This
is
currently
an
office
of
the
chair
study
with
Consultants
John
Duffy
and
Aditya
Bonsai
from
University
of
Virginia,
so
this
project
came
directly
out
of
recommendation
2021-5
and,
as
mentioned
it's
on
timing
of
judicial
review
of
agency
action.
So
we're
hoping
to
have
some
more
updates
on
that
in
the
coming
weeks.
Unfortunately,
Professor
Duffy
could
not
attend
this
meeting
and
then
lastly,
you
may
have
seen
in
the
member
update
that
earlier
this
month
there
was
an
amendment
to
the
federal
rules
of
civil
procedure
which
established
supplemental
rules
for
Social
Security
litigation.
A
L
B
I
think
they're
very
good,
but
they
did
take
six
years.
It
was,
and
that's
pretty
fast
we
but
it
is
it
is,
but
it,
but
it
will
be
a
big
significant
change
and
I
actually
talked
to
some
lawyers
at
Social.
Security
I
was
out
west
in
Chicago
and
just
happened
to
run
into
them
and
yeah,
and
some
of
them
were
not
aware
of
it,
but
they
all
were
very
pleased
to
hear
about
it.
I
I
think
this
Falls
within
the
good
of
the
order.
I
know
we've
got
the
plenary
next
week,
did
I
miss
the
email.
I
got
an
email
saying
the
agenda
is
available,
but
normally
there's
an
email
that
says
here
are
the
recommendations
and
comments
are
due
by
date.
X,
if
you
want
them
to
get
the
privilege
that
the
bylaws
give
to
comments
submitted
in
advance,
did
I
miss
that,
and
if
so,
could
someone
forward
it
to
me.
It.
L
D
J
Okay,
then,
with
that
I
believe
that
you
know
I'm
I'm
just
to
wrap
this
up.
I
think
this
has
been
a
very
productive
meeting.
I
want
to
thank
everybody
for
taking
the
time
to
join
us
this
morning
and
to
share
your
ideas
and
otherwise
I
believe
we
are
adjourned
and
I
will
look
forward
to
seeing
everyone
at
next
week's
plenary.