1 of 20

1

2 of 20

Recent Supreme Court Decisions/Administrative Law

Manufacture Alabama

November 13, 2024

Rob Fowler

Counsel and Environmental Team Leader

3 of 20

3

Recent Supreme Court Decisions

  • Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

  • Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

  • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

4 of 20

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

  • Factual/Procedural Background of Loper Bright:
    • The National Marine Fisheries Service, adopted a rule in 2020 requiring herring fisheries in the Northeast to fund the costs of on-board federal monitors.
    • DC Circuit Decision after giving Chevron Deference

    • Loper Bright Issue:

Since Chevron, “we have sometimes required courts to defer to ‘permissible’ agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently. In these cases we consider whether that doctrine should be overruled.” Loper Bright, slip op. at 1 (emphasis added).

4

5 of 20

Chevron Deference Deference:

5

Chevron Step 1:

The Court ask: Whether Congress has “directly spoken to the precise question at issue.”

YES

Chevron Step 2:

The court ask whether the agency’s action “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” “A court could not substitute its own construction of a statute” for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.

NO

Silent or Ambiguous

The Court “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”

Interesting Fact: Circuit Courts applied Chevron to 74.8% of administrative law cases, Skidmore to 10.8% and de novo of 7.5%.

6 of 20

6

Loper Bright, slip op. at 35:

“Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires . . . courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because it is ambiguous.”

The Death of Chevron

7 of 20

Concurring Opinions

7

Chevron deference also

violates our Constitution’s

separation of powers.”

“The reasonable bureaucrat always wins. And because the reasonable bureaucrat may change his mind year to year and election to election, the people can never know with certainty what new ‘interpretations’ might be used against them.”

8 of 20

Chevron Deference Analysis & Impacts:

8

Chevron Step 1:

The Court ask: Whether Congress has “directly spoken to the precise question at issue.”

YES

Chevron Step 2:

The court ask whether the agency’s action “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” “A court could not substitute its own construction of a statute” for a “reasonable interpretation” made by the administrator of an agency.

NO

Silent or Ambiguous

The Court “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”

IMPACT

Federal agencies won 93.8% of Federal Appellate cases when courts reach Step 2 of Chevron analysis!

IMPACT

Federal agencies won 38.8% of Federal Appellate cases decided at Step 1 of Chevron analysis.

Stephen Alexander Vaden, The Federalist Society, “Chevron Deference in the Circuit Courts: An Empirical Study, August 17, 2016. (citing Kent H. Barnett & Christopher J. Walker, Chevron in the Circuit Courts, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 116, pp. 1-73 (2017).

9 of 20

Agencies’ Win Percentages When Courts Applied Chevron

9

  • 11th Circuit: 81.0%
  • 7th Circuit: 80.0%
  • 2nd Circuit: 79.2%
  • 4th Circuit: 78.1%
  • 10th Circuit: 77.8%
  • DC Circuit: 77.3%
  • 6th Circuit: 76.3%
  • 3rd Circuit: 75.0%
  • 8th Circuit: 74.1%
  • 1st Circuit: 73.5%
  • 5th Circuit: 70.4%
  • 9th Circuit: 65.9%

15.1% Difference!

WHY?

Stephen Alexander Vaden, The Federalist Society, “Chevron Deference in the Circuit Courts: An Empirical Study, August 17, 2016. (citing Kent H. Barnett & Christopher J. Walker, Chevron in the Circuit Courts, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 116, pp. 1-73 (2017)

10 of 20

The Good News and Bad News of Loper Bright

10

The Good News:

  • Increased Judicial Oversight: Courts can now exercise independent judgment on agency interpretations, potentially leading to more favorable outcomes for businesses.

  • Reduced Agency Power: Limits on Chevron deference may decrease the regulatory burden, allowing businesses more flexibility in compliance.

  • Encouragement for Legal Challenges: Businesses may find it easier to challenge agency rules that they perceive as overreaching or unreasonable.

11 of 20

The Good News and Bad News of Loper Bright

The Bad News:

  • Uncertainty in Regulations: The decision creates ambiguity in how laws will be interpreted, leading to unpredictability in regulatory compliance.

  • Potential for Increased Litigation: More challenges to agency actions could result in a rise in legal disputes, increasing costs for businesses.

  • Impact on Agency Rulemaking: Agencies may struggle to implement new regulations effectively, potentially delaying important regulatory updates.

11

12 of 20

Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Factual/Procedural Background:

    • The Federal Reserve Board adopted regulations allowing debit card fees—effective in 2011—a challenge followed.

    • After applying Chevron, the DC Circuit upheld the Board’s fees.

    • Corner Post, a truck stop opened in 2018 and joined a new lawsuit challenging the amount of the fees.

    • Because the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) has a six-year statute of limitations for broad challenges to federal regulations, the DC Circuit rejected Corner Post’s challenge as being time barred—an appeal to SCOTUS followed.

12

13 of 20

Corner Post (cont.)

The Supreme Court effectively eliminated the statute of limitations for challenging agency rulemaking under the APA:

“An APA claim does not accrue . . . until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action” . . . [,] which only occurs once the plaintiff has a “complete and present cause of action.”

13

14 of 20

Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

    • Corner Post does not apply to rule challenges under statutes that clearly prescribe specific statute of limitations that is not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (i.e., CWA, CAA, TSCA, CERCLA, RCRA, etc.).

    • However: There are rules that are not necessarily covered by statutorily specific time limits—WOTUS is not covered under the CWA’s specific time limits for rule challenges.

14

15 of 20

Potential Impacts of Corner Post

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Challenges

Facial Challenges: The decision allows for more challenges to agency regulations that were previously considered immune after a six-year period. This means longstanding regulations could now be contested if a plaintiff experiences injury within the last six years. WITHOUT CHEVRON DEFERENCE!

Statute of Limitations: The ruling clarifies that claims under the APA accrue when a plaintiff suffers an injury, not when the agency action becomes final. This could lead to a reevaluation of how and when challenges to agency actions can be filed.

15

16 of 20

Potential Impacts of Corner Post (cont.)

Environmental Regulations

Many environmental rules established by federal agencies may be vulnerable to new challenges. The decision could lead to increased litigation against rules that were previously thought to be settled, including those related to pollution and resource management.

Financial Regulations

Rules set by financial regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Reserve and the SEC, may also face renewed scrutiny. This includes regulations concerning financial practices and consumer protections that could be challenged based on the new interpretation of the statute of limitations

16

17 of 20

Potential Impacts of Corner Post (cont.)

Health and Safety Regulations

Regulations from agencies like the FDA or OSHA could be revisited, particularly those that have been in place for several years but may have adverse effects on specific groups or industries. For example, a safety regulation might be beneficial in general but could disproportionately impact small businesses or specific sectors.

Labor and Employment Rules

Labor regulations that affect workplace standards and employee rights may also be subject to new challenges, especially if employees can demonstrate recent injuries or adverse effects stemming from these rules

17

18 of 20

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

Factual/Procedural Background of Jarkesy:

  • SEC brough an actions against Jarkesy and an investment advisor (jointly “Jarkesy”) alleging securities fraud.
  • Jarkesy petitioned 5th Circuit for review, asserting that required SEC administrative proceedings deprived them of their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, among other challenges.
  • In a 6-3 decision on the Seventh Amendment issue, the Jarkesy Court held that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties for “common law” securities fraud violations.
  • Court reasoned that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a trial by jury when the Government's claim is legal as opposed to equitable, finding that a civil penalty is a legal remedy if it is meant to punish or deter the defendant.

18

19 of 20

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

Possibly implications of Jarkesy:

  • The Jarkesy Court relied on 1987 CWA case, Tull v. U.S., that decided penalties under the CWA are “similar to” “common law” remedies that trigger the right to a trial by jury.
  • Increase challenges to enforcement actions related to claims with ties to common law (i.e., fraud) or to civil penalties.
  • Increase challenges that use administrative proceedings to pursue violations of various laws (i.e., EEOC, CWA, Immigration, Data Privacy)
  • Agencies will likely require specific waivers of right to jury trial for administrative resolutions.

19

20 of 20

Questions?

20

Rob Fowler

rob.fowler@arlaw.com

(205)250-5060