Let’s look at two recent Supreme Court cases impacting the role and powers of federal regulators. After decades of accepted areas of law that deferred to federal regulators, we are witnessing a shakeup through rulings on the so-called Chevron Deference and the Corner Post decision. How will these landmark rulings change the power held by agencies?
The modern regulatory state of the federal governments evolved after the Great Depression during the New Deal to tighten lax oversight blamed for many elements that led to the Depression. As new agencies were created, regulators came to enforce developing legislation, such as the Securities Exchange Act and labor rules. Seventy plus years later, we have our alphabet soup of federal agencies.
Expect a slew of new challenges and litigation to follow. “It is impossible to overstate what a complete wreck this is going to make of everything,” says guest and associate professor of administrative law Gwendolyn Savitz, calling the effect of the rulings “calamitous.” How can legislators put the toothpaste back in the tube?
“Chevron’s a big deal, it’s reversal’s a big deal,” adds guest and regulatory law veteran Paul Weiland. If you’re involved in regulatory law, you can’t miss this episode.
Resources:
“Reassessing Administrative Finality: The Importance of New Evidence and Changed Circumstances,” by Gwendolyn Savitz
Administrative Procedures Act, Cornell Law School
“Loper Bright, Skidmore, and the Gravitational Pull of Past Agency Interpretations,” Yale Journal of Regulation
Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, via Justia
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, SCOTUSblog
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, SCOTUSblog
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NOAA
“The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference – What Now?” NRDC
American Bar Association
American Bar Association Litigation Section
