The Supreme Court made significant decisions this week that impact oversight of securities fraud, pollution, and other regulatory matters. In two key rulings, the conservative majority questioned regulatory agencies’ oversight mechanisms and eliminated a longstanding doctrine concerning their authority to interpret legal questions within their specialized areas.
These rulings align with the goals of the conservative legal movement outlined in the Project 2025 manifesto to “deconstruct the Administrative State” and further concentrate authority within the federal judiciary.
In the first decision, SEC v. Jarkesy, the conservative majority weakened oversight agencies’ ability to impose fines and penalties through administrative proceedings rather than federal courts. In the second decision, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the conservative majority overturned a significant ruling on regulators’ role in legal interpretation.
Both cases saw a 6-3 split along ideological lines.
In her dissent in Loper Bright, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the Court’s rollback of agency authority despite congressional directives and its willingness to discard established law like Roe v. Wade.
According to Allison Zieve, litigation director at Public Citizen, these decisions represent a power grab by the courts, diminishing the authority of other branches of government.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored both decisions, aligning with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative advocacy groups like America First Policy Institute.
Earlier in the term, the Court refrained from ruling the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau unconstitutional but is now restricting regulatory agencies’ actions. The SEC ruling affects enforcement measures created after the 2008 financial crisis, potentially impacting various agencies such as the CFPB, EPA, and FDA.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the far-reaching consequences of the decisions, expressing concerns about the separation of powers and the Court’s assertion of superiority.
The Loper Bright case challenged agencies’ interpretation of laws they enforce, overturning the Chevron doctrine that courts should defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
These decisions pave the way for future challenges to agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission, signaling a shift of power towards the federal judiciary.
Georgia State University law professor Eric Segall noted that these rulings continue the trend of the Supreme Court consolidating power away from elected officials and towards the justices themselves.
Please rewrite the following sentence: “The cat chased the mouse around the house.”
Source link
