The Silent Revolution: Conservative Judges Shrink the Administrative State
The Supreme Court, now firmly under the control of conservative justices, has delivered a series of monumental rulings this year, significantly curtailing the power of federal agencies. This shift, long sought by conservatives, represents a decisive victory in their decades-long battle against what they perceive as an overreaching "administrative state." The impact of these decisions will be felt across a wide range of policy areas, from environmental protection to financial regulations, and could redefine the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.
Key Takeaways:
- Deconstructing the Administrative State: The Supreme Court’s rulings, particularly the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old precedent that granted deference to agencies in interpreting laws, has effectively empowered courts to second-guess agency actions, limiting their regulatory authority.
- The Federalist Society’s Influence: These rulings are a culmination of years of strategic planning by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization that has championed judges who believe in a limited federal government. Key figures like Donald F. McGahn II, former White House Counsel to President Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell, former Senate Majority Leader, played instrumental roles in elevating these judges to the bench.
- Beyond Abortion Rights: While the court’s decisions on issues like abortion have garnered substantial attention, the shrinking of the administrative state is seen as a more significant long-term impact, reflecting a profound shift in the court’s philosophy and its impact on the government’s structure.
- Congress Back in the Driver’s Seat?: Conservatives argue that these rulings will force Congress to take a more active role in crafting detailed legislation, preventing agencies from wielding excessive discretion in implementing regulations. However, Democrats warn that this could lead to a governmental paralysis, hindering progress on crucial issues.
This "quiet revolution" in administrative law is just beginning to unfold. Its far-reaching consequences, including an increase in legal challenges against agencies and potential setbacks for environmental protections, will continue to be debated for years to come. The ramifications for the balance of power in the American government and the future of federal regulation are profound, signaling a fundamental shift in the way the United States is governed.
A Long-Standing Agenda:
Donald McGahn, a key architect of the Supreme Court appointments under President Trump, spearheaded a deliberate strategy to reshape the judiciary by identifying judges who held strong convictions about limiting the power of federal agencies. He believed that the "runaway bureaucracy" required checks and balances, and he saw the judiciary as the ideal platform to achieve this.
"It was a way to corral the runaway bureaucracy to get judges in place who were actually going to read the law as it was written," McGahn stated in an interview.
Senator Mitch McConnell, a staunch advocate of judicial restraint, echoed this sentiment. "Dismantling the administrative state and empowering people who are actually elected to make decisions has been the motivating force" for conservatives, he said.
The Case of Justice Gorsuch:
The appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has been vocal about limiting agency power, stands as a testament to this strategy. In a 2016 opinion, he wrote about confronting the "behemoth" of expansive federal regulatory authority, a thought that resonated strongly with McGahn, who quickly included Gorsuch on President Trump’s shortlist for the Supreme Court.
Beyond Gorsuch:
The strategy extended beyond Gorsuch. McGahn actively sought out other candidates who shared this philosophy, such as Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom now also sit on the Supreme Court.
"She spoke favorably of the work of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh," McGahn said about Barrett. "These guys are cut from the same block of wood."
The Impact of the Rulings:
The Supreme Court’s decisions have been met with both celebration and alarm. Conservatives hail them as a necessary step to restore balance to the government, arguing that Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, should be the primary architects of policy.
"This puts Congress back in the driver’s seat," McGahn said. "It also gives them a real responsibility that they have to start doing their job and legislate with some sort of specificity."
However, Democrats are deeply concerned, warning that these rulings could have far-reaching consequences, eroding decades of environmental protections, jeopardizing consumer safeguards, and potentially leading to a gridlock in government.
"I think this is an issue that has the potential over the long term to kind of rearrange the power between those who are actually elected and those who are doing whatever they want to," McConnell said, highlighting the shift in power from federal regulators to elected officials.
The Future of the Administrative State:
The ramifications of this judicial shift will be felt for years to come. The debate over the administrative state is likely to intensify, with conservatives pushing for further restrictions on agency power and Democrats seeking to mitigate the impact of these rulings. The outcome will determine the shape of the American government and the future of federal regulation for generations to come.
