English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The future effectiveness of informal rulemaking may hang in the balance of a currently raging debate over the proper scope of preenforcement judicial review of rules informally promulgated by federal agencies.1 "With increasing frequency, rules of general applicability adopted by agencies informally . . . are being reviewed by [appellate and district] courts directly," before they are adjudicatively enforced or applied to a private party.' The subject of this preenforcement judicial review, agency informal rulemaking, is a "quasi-legislative" 3 process which, in many respects, is widely considered superior to agency formal rulemaking and adjudication. 4 The latter generally require the

Model Review of Informal Rulemaking: Recommendation 74-4 of the Administrative Conference of the United States