{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0249396621078037, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003218020917135961, 'mean_word_length': 5.314720812182741, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Rachel St. John, Line in the Sand: A History of the Western U.S.-Mexico Border (2011)

intends to push. In particular, the nineteenth century administrative constitution mostly addresses itself to the procedures for adjudications, and the most important business of contemporary agencies is rulemaking. And while agency leaders have strong incentives to regulate the front-line employees who conduct adjudications, it is less obvious that they would wish to bind themselves for the policy-level determinations that go into rulemaking. Moreover, the legitimacy of rulemaking rests in large part on the requirement of reasoned explanation, and for all the problems judicial review introduces, this requirement might be harder to insist on in its absence of someone to test it. And because rulemaking attracts presidential involvement more than individual determinations typically do, judicial review serves the further function of ensuring presidential influence remains within proper statutory bounds. It’s beyond the scope of Mashaw’s book to answer these questions. But it’s to the book’s further credit that it has raised them, by starting an important conversation about what administrative law’s past has to teach the present.