Supreme Court broadly shifts power from federal agencies to judges
![Supreme Court broadly shifts power from federal agencies to judges](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/scotus_062824gn01_w.jpg?w=900)
The Supreme Court has broadly expanded the power of judges at the expense of federal agencies with a pair of decisions this week, and it could be poised to do so again next week.
Altogether, its actions to transfer authority from agencies to the judiciary could curtail a wide range of financial, environmental, workplace and consumer protections.
“It's just part of a continuing trend with the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular, exercising more and more power … at the expense, potentially, of the other branches,” said Don Goodson, deputy director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.
On Friday, the court struck down a legal doctrine known as the Chevron deference that instructed judges to defer to agencies when the law is ambiguous, in a case known as Loper Bright v. Raimondo.
That decision came one day after it ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of internal administrative courts to try civil fraud cases was unconstitutional — a move that could reverberate to other agencies that also use administrative courts.
In a scathing dissent on the Chevron case, Justice Elena Kagan wrote “it is impossible to pretend that today’s decision is a one-off” in how it treats agencies, noting that the SEC case similarly kneecapped them.
“This very Term presents yet another example of the Court’s resolve to roll back agency authority,” she added.
Next week the court is expected to issue a decision in a third case that could weaken regulatory statutes of limitation and give opponents of a federal action more time to sue.
“You do see a court that's growing increasingly skeptical of executive power and administrative power” over the last decade, said Jesse Panuccio, who was the Justice Department’s acting associate attorney general during the Trump administration.
“The executive branch has grown vastly in its powers and in the scope of its regulation,” he added. “I think the court is saying, if that's where we're going to be, we need to rein in some of these presumptions in favor of agencies.”
But critics of the court’s moves say that they could weaken the agencies to the detriment of the country.
James Goodwin, policy director at the Center for Progressive Reform, said that the opinions issued this past week are “all pointed in the same anti-regulatory direction.”
He said the SEC case will “have a chilling effect on agency enforcement actions,” while the Loper Bright case will have a “similar chilling effect on agencies, but with respect to policy making.”
The latter case is expected to allow judges to more easily strike down federal agency rules. That increase in judicial power is technically politically neutral, though liberal critics say the federal judiciary’s conservative makeup could in practice enable right-wing principles to prevail in many cases.
Goodson said that even prior to the decision, some agencies may have already been avoiding actions that would rely on Chevron out of fear that the precedent would be overturned.
“Many people have been treating Chevron as overruled for several years now because of the extreme skepticism that has been coming from members of the court,” he said.
The SEC case will apply “anytime federal agencies seek to pursue civil penalties for certain kinds of violations,” like fraud, requiring such cases to go to the federal judiciary, said Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
But he noted that agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could also see their cases shifted to federal court — and that the ruling could reach nonfinancial agencies, too, in cases like fraudulent filing of environmental reports with the government.
The cases echo a prior decision that also curbed federal agencies’ power. In that 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court not only limited how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate climate change, it also codified a legal theory known as the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that regulations of substantial national significance need to have clear authorization from Congress.
Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that decision will have an even greater impact than the more recent ones.
When the major questions doctrine is applied, “the agency doesn't even have the power to regulate, let alone to regulate in a particular way,” said Carlson, who also recently served in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden.
Carlson said that Friday’s decision is “one more weapon ... in an arsenal being used to attack the administrative state,” but that she expects the “major questions doctrine” to be much more impactful.
Goodwin, with the Center for Progressive Reform, similarly said that he expects major questions to come into play for the biggest cases, while the Loper Bright ruling may have an impact in cases involving more “intermediate” rules like endangered species protections.
Panuccio, the former Justice Department official who is now a partner at law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, said that in the coming years, the court has the opportunity to go even further in reining in the other branches by looking to restrict what authorities Congress is allowed to delegate to the agencies.
“That's always a challenge that pops up here and there, which is … is the court willing to revisit what's called the non-delegation doctrine and put some limits on what Congress allows agencies to do?” he said.
“So long as there are regulated parties and parties on the losing end of a government decision, that's always something litigants are going to try …. to try to get that question before the court again,” he added.
Date: |
Filter
-
The Wall Street Journal - World
Some of the Biden administration's top domestic priorities, from cracking down on power-plant pollution to bringing back net neutrality, are on shakier legal footing after a Supreme Court decision shifted power away from federal agencies.
Some of the Biden administration’s top domestic priorities, from cracking down on power-plant pollution to bringing back net neutrality, are on shakier legal footing after a Supreme Court decision shifted power away from federal agencies. -
CBS News - Politics
Supreme Court curtails federal agencies' power in major ruling
The Supreme Court overturned a landmark 40-year-old decision that gave federal agencies broad regulatory power. -
The Hill - Politics
Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal agency power in Chevron case
The Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to executive agencies’ power Friday by overruling a prominent precedent that bolstered their ability to implement regulations in wide areas of American life, including consumer and environmental protections. ... -
The New York Times - Top stories
Supreme Court’s Chevron Ruling Limits Power of Federal Agencies
A foundational 1984 decision had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment. -
The Hill - Politics
Supreme Court curtails agency power
Welcome to The Hill's Energy & Environment newsletter {beacon} == Energy & Environment Energy & Environment The Big Story Supreme Court ruling transfers power from agencies to judges The high court on Friday overruled a 40-year-old precedent ... -
NBC News - Politics
Supreme Court delivers blow to power of federal agencies, overturning 40-year-old precedent
The Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that has been a target of the right because it is seen as bolstering the power of "deep state" bureaucrats. -
The Wall Street Journal - World
The Supreme Courtupended the federal regulatory frameworkin place for 40 years, expanding the power of federal judges to overturn agency decisions over environmental, consumer and workplace safety policy, among other areas.
The Supreme Court upended the federal regulatory framework in place for 40 years, expanding the power of federal judges to overturn agency decisions over environmental, consumer and workplace safety policy, among other areas. -
The Wall Street Journal - World
Supreme Court Pares Back Federal Regulatory Power
The justices upended the regulatory framework in place for 40 years, expanding the power of judges to second-guess agency decisions over environmental, consumer and other policy matters. -
CBS News - Top stories
Supreme Court overturns Chevron precedent, limiting federal regulatory power
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Thursday to overturn a 40-year-old decision that had given federal agencies broad regulatory power, curtailing the agencies' ability to enforce regulations. Former federal prosecutor Scott Fredericksen joined CBS News ...
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
Psaki defends debate prep team: 'Biden was bad'
MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki, who once served as President Biden's press secretary, defended his campaign amid criticism of the president's debate performance last week, instead pinning the blame on the president. Psaki said it is “absurd” to blame ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Head of Trump PAC predicts 'cannibalistic chaos' if Dems replace Biden
The head of the primary super PAC supporting former President Trump said the potential replacement of President Biden as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee would be “impossible” to carry out and essentially spell defeat for the party in ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Doubts have grown over Biden's mental fitness: Poll
Voters' doubts about President Biden’s fitness to serve in the Oval Office have grown over the past few months, according to a new poll released Monday amid the fallout from his shaky debate performance last week. The latest Harvard CAPS-Harris ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Trump lead over Biden unchanged since debate: Poll
Former President Trump’s lead over President Biden in national polling is unchanged following the debate between the candidates last week, according to a new survey. The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released Monday, which was conducted after the ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Luttig: Trump, other presidents now 'above the law'
Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig said former President Trump and other U.S. presidents can now be considered "above the law" after the Supreme Court ruled Monday that core presidential powers are immune from prosecution. “It can never again ...Donald Trump