SCOTUS v. Federal Regulators

In the last few days, SCOTUS has made three rulings that seriously weaken the federal administrative state.

In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, No. 22-1008, it effectively eliminated the six year statute of limitations for facial challenges to federal regulations, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, it ended Chevron deference to administrative agency interpretations of federal statutes through regulations, and in SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859 it has ended the ability of federal agencies to impose civil fines through administrative hearings - requiring jury trials in federal district courts instead (contrary to more than 200 federal statutes enacted after SCOTUS approved the practice).

The current ultraconservative court has taken other steps to weaken federal regulatory agencies in the past, but these three cases together are a revolution in federal administrative law that greatly weaken the power of the federal government to enforce federal laws.

For example, in the past week it also decided Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23A349, which ordered a stay of enforcement of certain federal environmental regulations in the face of a dubious challenge to them. This decision, on its face, however, has less broad implications.