Search
Generic filters
05 October 2023

Slicing Away at Regulatory Statutes

In its June 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Water Act of 1972 to significantly cut back its water pollution protections and to hand an important victory to private property owners.  Sackett is not simply important for its impact on environmental protection.  Although it may be among the Court’s less visible recent rulings, it follows the Court’s trend of anti-administrativist rulings and may add importantly to the Court’s kit of anti-regulatory interpretive tools.    Continue reading >>
0
03 July 2023

The Supreme Court v. the Administrative State

On Friday, June 30, the Supreme Court ended its session with a serious blow to the progressive agenda after its decisions striking down race-conscious college admissions and narrowing protections for LGBTQ consumers the day before. In its final case, Biden v. Nebraska, the Court further thwarted the Biden campaign, which is counting on the help of young voters to get reelected for a second term, as it struck down the Biden administration’s plan to wipe out more than $400 billion in student debt. The decision in Biden v. Nebraska joins a series of recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at curbing the executive branch’s power to regulate certain issues and to limit the so-called administrative state. In this battle against the administrative state, the major question doctrine, according to which it cannot be assumed that the administration has been authorized to regulate a “major question” with far-reaching economic and political consequences without “clear congressional authorization,” has become one of the central tools. Continue reading >>
19 January 2022

The Death of Law and Equity

On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions governing requests for emergency stays of two rules protecting Americans from COVID 19. Both rules relied on very similar statutory language, which clearly authorized protection from threats to health. Both of them presented strikingly bad cases for emergency stays. Yet, the Court granted an emergency stay in one of these cases and denied it in the other. These decisions suggest that the Court applies judicial discretion unguided by law or traditional equitable considerations governing treatment of politically controversial regulatory cases. Continue reading >>
Go to Top