High court decisions jeopardize government powers to regulate and enforce rules
Two landmark decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court last week could have a big impact on the ability of federal agencies to write and enforce regulations.
Among others, affected agencies include the:
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
- Department of Transportation (DOT),
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Due to one of the court’s decisions, regulations that are based on vague instructions from Congress could be struck down.
The other decision may help companies that are being fined for violations. The court said these companies have the right to ask for a jury trial, which will add time and expense to the enforcement process.
Chevron deference tossed
When Congress tells an agency to write regulations on a complex issue like safety, health, labor, or the environment, the instructions are not always clear. Agency experts are left to interpret the will of Congress and work out all the details.
For the past 40 years, courts have generally let the agencies do that, as long as the experts’ interpretations were reasonable. This was known as “Chevron deference,” and the Supreme Court has now done away with it.
In a 6-3 decision issued June 28, 2024 (Case No. 22-451), the court said the judicial branch — not agencies in the executive branch — should have final say on what Congress intended. “It … remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority’s 35-page decision.
In limiting the power of the “administrative state,” the case is expected to prompt lawsuits challenging all sorts of regulations, from worker protections to food safety and the environment.
In a strongly-worded dissent, Justice Elena Kagan characterized the court’s action as a power grab. She wrote that the court was giving “itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law.”
Jury trials for agency fines
When a company or individual violates a regulation, the result may be a fine. Many agencies, including the EPA, OSHA, EEOC, NLRB, and the DOT, levy fines based on the decisions of judges who work for the agency itself (they’re not part of the judicial branch). Defendants are often stuck with the judge’s decision and can’t plead their case to a jury.
In a 6-3 decision issued June 27, 2024 (Case No. 22-859), the Supreme Court said this violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
“A defendant … has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” wrote Justice Roberts.
As a result, enforcement cases that commonly take weeks or months to resolve could be moved to a jury trial in federal court. This shift is likely to stretch the cases out for years, at much greater expense.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling “earthshattering” and “a massive sea change.” The Justice argued that it “means that the constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress.”
Key to remember: Two high-court decisions have shaken the regulatory landscape. As a result, federal agencies may have a tougher time not only enforcing regulations but also creating new ones.
