The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority has focused on limiting federal regulatory authority this term, impacting various areas such as stock trading and pollution regulation. The court overturned a 1984 precedent on administrative law known as “Chevron deference,” making it easier for judges to challenge agency regulations. The rulings have empowered legal challenges in areas such as air and water quality, food and drug safety, and investor protection. The court’s decisions have had a significant impact on agency power, including reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.
The court’s conservative majority has consistently aimed at limiting the power of administrative agencies in recent years. The justices have shown a clear tendency to curtail regulatory bureaucracies, making it easier for regulated parties to challenge agency actions. While legal scholars debate the extent to which these rulings undermine regulatory agencies, it is evident that the court has taken steps towards dismantling the federal regulatory state. However, experts note that the court has not completely destroyed the administrative state and still maintains some level of deference to regulatory agencies.
In addition to regulatory matters, the court also had the opportunity to further restrict access to abortion and expand gun rights but declined to do so in the most recent term. The court rejected a case involving anti-abortion groups seeking to restrict access to the abortion pill and did not address the enforcement of Idaho’s strict abortion ban in medical emergencies. The court also refused to expand gun rights under the Second Amendment in a case involving domestic abusers’ access to firearms and suggested limits to challenging gun control measures based on historical firearm regulation traditions.
Looking ahead, the court has upcoming cases involving challenges to federal regulations on homemade “ghost guns” and bans on gun possession by non-violent felons and users of illegal drugs, as well as assault-type rifles. The justices will also decide the legality of state bans on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. The court’s decisions this term highlight a focus on limiting administrative agency power, maintaining stricter regulations on abortion access, and refraining from expanding gun rights under the Second Amendment. Legal experts continue to monitor the court’s decisions and their implications for federal regulatory authority and individual rights.
