U.S. Supreme Court

Subscribe to U.S. Supreme Court

These days, it seems like there are three guarantees in life—death, taxes, and monumental Supreme Court administrative law opinions in the summer. As you’ve probably heard by now, the trend continues this year, including perhaps the largest fireworks display possible (in the administrative law context, that is). If for some reason you’ve been ignoring the news, just recently in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron decision and held that courts need not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute; rather, courts must exercise independent judgment when determining whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.

There’s a lot to unpack in the 109 pages of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. So, we’ll just focus on what this could mean for the recent uptick in agency action coming out of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).Continue Reading The Loper Bright Impact: Agency Action Likely to Face More Scrutiny in Light of the Supreme Court’s Disposal of Chevron Deference

On October 3, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, where the Court is reviewing the Fifth Circuit’s opinion that struck down the Payday Lending Rule because the Fifth Circuit found that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (the “Bureau”) funding structure is unconstitutional. While the Fifth Circuit decision was limited to the Payday Lending Rule, a ruling upholding the Fifth Circuit’s decision would have severe ramifications for the Bureau and could potentially lead to the demise of the agency without congressional action.

As a refresher, the Fifth Circuit held that the Bureau’s “unique” funding structure violates Article I of the Constitution—vesting Congress with appropriation power—because the agency is not funded through congressional appropriations. Rather, the Bureau receives its funding from the Federal Reserve, which is funded through bank assessments. In short, the Fifth Circuit found that Congress had abdicated its “power of the purse” and had run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine where it has no involvement in the CFPB’s ongoing funding.Continue Reading C[FPB] You Later? Agency’s Future Hangs in the Balance After Oral Argument

The Supreme Court’s opinion last week in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross raises more questions than it answers regarding what state laws might violate the dormant Commerce Clause. California prohibits the in-state sale of pork that comes from pigs raised in “cruel” conditions—even though nearly all the pork sold in California is raised in other states. The Court upheld that law in the face of a dormant Commerce Clause challenge. But the Court’s fractured reasoning makes it hard to predict how other laws might fare.

As a refresher, the Dormant Commerce Clause stems from Congress’s Article 1, Section 8 authority to regulate commerce “among the several States.” In contrast to preemption, which limits states’ authority in an area where Congress has acted, the Dormant Commerce Clause limits states’ ability to regulate even when there is no relevant congressional action. Continue Reading Could Texas Ban the Sale of Union-Made Goods? After National Pork Producers, We Still Don’t Know