At End of Term, Court Pummels Agencies in Four Landmark Cases.

The Supreme Court recently handed down four landmark decisions that have significant implications for federal agencies. In Ohio v. EPA, the Court scrutinized the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision on cross-state air pollution, finding that the agency had not adequately addressed certain comments on the rule. However, Justice Barrett dissented, arguing that the alleged procedural error likely had no impact on the plan. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court held that individuals accused of securities fraud have a right to a jury trial in Article III courts, potentially affecting enforcement at other agencies like the EPA. Additionally, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute if it was reasonable. This decision may make it more difficult for agencies to justify changes in course, even with a change in administration. Lastly, in Corner Post v. Board of Governors, the Court allowed challenges to agency rules long after the statute of limitations had expired, potentially enabling regulated entities to challenge long-standing regulations. These decisions collectively make it harder for agencies to address the problems Congress intended them to face and may impede a new president's ability to pursue regulatory priorities. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Environmental Forum is the property of Environmental Law Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)