Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Delivers Major Blow to Regulatory Agencies
In a series of sweeping decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has launched a coordinated attack on the power of federal regulatory agencies, effectively rolling back decades of precedent and weakening the ability of the government to protect public interests. This marks a significant victory for powerful business interests and a worrying trend for the future of regulation in the United States.
Key Takeaways:
- Erosion of Administrative Law: The Court has overturned the Chevron Doctrine, a 40-year-old principle that required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of their own laws. This ruling will make it significantly easier to challenge regulations in court, empowering challengers to question even the expertise of federal agencies.
- Targeting Internal Tribunals: In another major decision, the Court struck down a key practice by which agencies enforce rules through internal administrative courts, potentially shifting power away from agencies and into the hands of federal judges.
- Long-Term Conservative Agenda: These decisions are the latest steps in a decades-long conservative push to curb the so-called "administrative state," which refers to the system of agencies and regulations that govern key aspects of American society.
- Implications for Public Welfare: These rulings are expected to have far-reaching implications for environmental protection, consumer safety, financial regulation, and other areas where agencies play a critical role.
The Rise of the Deregulatory Agenda:
The current Supreme Court’s hostility towards the administrative state reflects a long-held belief within the conservative legal movement that the system of government regulation stifles free enterprise and hinders the ability of businesses to operate without interference. This belief can be traced back to the Great Depression and the rise of the New Deal, when a burgeoning administrative state was created to regulate the burgeoning economy and alleviate the economic woes faced by the nation. Conservative critics, however, viewed this regulatory system as an infringement on individual liberty and a threat to the free market.
The conservative legal movement, which gained prominence in the 1970s and 80s, emerged as a key force in promoting this stance. Fueled by wealthy donors and powerful business interests, the movement sought to dismantle the "administrative state" by challenging regulations through legal challenges and shaping policy through think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
The Federalist Society’s Influence:
The Federalist Society, a highly influential network of conservative lawyers, played a pivotal role in advancing this agenda. Its members, including many who later ascended to the Supreme Court, championed a view where judges should exercise significant authority to limit the power of administrative agencies. This approach, known as "judicial activism," is ironic considering the conservative movement’s broader condemnation of "activist judges" who interpret the Constitution liberally.
The Trump Era and its Legacy:
The appointment of conservative judges by former President Donald Trump significantly reinforced the Supreme Court’s conservative tilt. Through his administration, Trump actively pursued deregulation, appointing officials who shared the Federalist Society’s vision for a limited "administrative state." This included the appointment of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who joined Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, both appointed by George W. Bush, to form a formidable conservative bloc within the Court.
Trump’s administration’s hostility towards the administrative state went beyond appointing judges. It included efforts to dismantle agencies, weaken regulations, and replace career civil servants with political appointees loyal to the administration’s agenda.
The Fallout and the Future:
The consequences of the Supreme Court’s deregulation agenda are already being felt. The Court’s decisions have empowered businesses to challenge regulations, stalling progress on issues like climate change, workplace safety, and consumer protection. A worrying trend has emerged with the increasing use of the “major questions doctrine”, which allows the Court to overturn regulations if it deems that Congress did not explicitly authorize them. This has led to setbacks in environmental regulations and a weakened ability of agencies to address emerging public health threats.
The Supreme Court’s recent rulings, particularly the overturn of the Chevron Doctrine and the striking down of agency tribunals, have further emboldened this trend, granting businesses enhanced power to challenge government regulations and potentially creating significant hurdles for implementing even basic safety and environmental standards.
The Road Ahead:
With the Court solidly in the hands of conservative justices, the attack on the administrative state is unlikely to stop anytime soon. More extreme deregulation proposals, including a sweeping interpretation of the nondelegation doctrine, which could potentially cripple the regulatory process by curtailing the power of agencies to create rules, are lurking on the horizon.
The implications of these rulings are far-reaching, impacting not only the power of the government but also the well-being of the American people. The future of regulation in the United States hangs in the balance, with the potential for a dramatic shift in the government’s ability to protect the public interest and ensure a safe and healthy environment. This is a trend that demands the attention of all Americans, as the consequences of a weakened regulatory system will be felt by everyone.
