discretion-in-the-automated-administrative-state.html.pm

#lang pollen

◊define-meta[page-title]{Discretion in the Automated Administrative State}
◊define-meta[short-title]{Automated discretion}
◊define-meta[snippet]{An article about the effects of algorithms on the relationships within the administrative state.}
◊define-meta[original-date]{2022-04-13}
◊define-meta[edited-date]{2023-01-11}

◊declare-work[#:id "McCann" #:type "article" #:author "Sancho McCann"
#:title "Discretion in the Automated Administrative State" #:volume
"36" #:issue "1" #:first-page "171" #:journal "Can JL & Jur" #:year
"2023" #:url "https://www.doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2022.25"]

◊cite["McCann"]

◊sub-heading{Abstract}

Automated decision-making takes up an increasingly significant place
in our administrative state. This article presents a conception of
discretion that is helpful for evaluating the proper place of
algorithms in public decision-making. I argue that the algorithm
itself is not a site of discretion. The threat is that automated
decision-making alters the relationships between traditional actors in
a way that can cut down discretion and human commitment. Algorithmic
decision-makers can serve to fetter the discretion that the
legislature and the populace expect to be exercised. We must strive to
maintain discretion, moral agency, deliberative ideals, and human
commitment through the system that surrounds the use of an algorithm
and to develop a new expertise that can retain and exercise the
expected discretion. Backing this argument are traditional legal
constraints, public expectations, and administrative law principles,
tied together through the organizing principle of discretion.

◊sub-heading{Thanks}

I would like to thank Professor Mary Liston for supervising this
research project and for our many engaging discussions. I also thank
the participants of the Algorithms and Rule of Law reading group
convened at the Peter A. Allard School of Law.