The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has recently made decisions that will limit the power of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests. Two rulings in particular set precedents that would make it easier to challenge regulations and enforce rules against accused individuals via in-house tribunals. The overall trend of these decisions is to erode the power of federal regulatory agencies, indicating a commitment to a deregulatory agenda that will influence future court decisions. The justices in question are all Republican appointees with ties to the conservative legal movement, which has long sought to curb the power of the so-called administrative state.
The battle over the administrative state can be traced back to the Great Depression and the New Deal era, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to impose order on a complex economy by creating regulatory agencies staffed with technical experts. These agencies have been tasked with drafting and enforcing regulations to ensure the safety and well-being of society, but they have faced pushback from wealth business interests who view such regulations as socialism. This opposition has been fueled by a long-running conservative legal movement that has sought to roll back the administrative state, which has gained influence in recent decades.
The conservative legal movement has had a significant impact on U.S. politics and policymaking through organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society. This movement has influenced Republican administrations, including the Reagan administration, which saw the appointment of key figures such as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The movement also played a role in shaping the judicial appointments made by President Donald J. Trump, who has sought to dismantle the administrative state through deregulation and reforms to regulatory agencies.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it easier to challenge agency regulations and have limited the ability of agencies to enforce rules on businesses. The court has relied on doctrines like the major questions doctrine, which dictates that economically significant regulations can be nullified if Congress’s authorization is not clear. The court has struck down rules aimed at limiting carbon pollution, barred the imposition of Covid-19 vaccination requirements by employers, and rejected aspects of laws that create regulatory agencies. This trend signals a broader effort to limit the power of federal agencies in the regulatory process.
While the recent overturning of the Chevron doctrine represents a significant victory for opponents of the administrative state, some hope for even more sweeping changes. A potential reinterpretation of the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that Congress cannot delegate lawmaking authority to executive branch agencies, could further limit the power of regulatory agencies. If adopted by the court, this doctrine could have far-reaching implications for the regulatory structure of the U.S. government and the rules and regulations that have been developed over the decades. The court’s decisions in this area are likely to continue to be a focal point of debate and contention in the years to come.
