March 2026 Administrative Law Review: Procedure Becomes Merits

The first in-window anchor is “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking To Amend the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule,” issued by Commerce Department. The second is “Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Temporary-Use Incinerators and Air Curtain Incinerators Used in Disaster Recovery; Rescission of Interim Final Rule,” issued by Environmental Protection Agency. A separate published judicial anchor, “Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, No. 24-777,” supplies primary case law from Supreme Court of the United States. Read together, they show the range of instruments, enforcement postures, and—where present—judicial authority that can shape this practice area during a single month.[1][2][3]

Neither a publication title nor an agency summary should be asked to carry more weight than its posture permits. A proposed action is not a final rule; a charging document states allegations; a settlement resolves a matter on negotiated terms; and a notice may initiate, explain, or complete only the procedure it identifies.[1][2]

An advance notice on vessel-strike rules and rescission of an interim incinerator rule illustrate that agencies can solicit, adopt, reconsider, and withdraw on different records. The Supreme Court’s substantial-evidence decision separately clarifies the reviewing court’s posture toward an agency fact determination.[1][2][3]

NMFS opened an advance inquiry into modernizing the North Atlantic right-whale vessel-speed regime through alternative management approaches and technology, an early-stage solicitation that commits the agency to no particular rule. EPA separately finalized the rescission of interim disaster-incinerator exclusions while indicating that any replacement approach would proceed through future notice-and-comment rulemaking.[1][2]

In Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires substantial-evidence review of the agency’s determination whether undisputed facts amount to persecution, including the mixed factual-and-legal determination as a whole. Applying that standard, the Court affirmed the First Circuit.[3]

After the decline of reflexive deference, regulated parties should separate the court’s independent interpretation of law from record-based review of agency reasoning, procedure, factfinding, and discretion. The selected statutory, regulatory, or policy materials below provide background for recurring issues in this practice area; they may not govern every monthly development. Counsel must identify the operative authority for the particular facts before advising on scope, duties, or relief.[1][2][4][5]

The practical task is to create a record that presents the legal issue cleanly, supplies the relevant facts and alternatives, preserves objections, and identifies the relief available at the correct procedural stage.[1][4][5]

Monitor whether the agency is soliciting input, initiating rulemaking, acting finally, reconsidering, withdrawing, or responding to a petition. Reviewability, timing, exhaustion, and remedy may turn on that classification.[1][2]

This March 2026 edition is an issue-spotting record, not a representation that every relevant authority was captured. The accepted ingest covered Federal Register and DOJ materials for the calendar month; case-law discovery, historical eCFR changes, dockets, corporate filings, and state sources remain subject to the limitations stated on this page.[1][2]