Supreme Court Decisions Mean Major Changes In Agency Regulation

According to an article from law firm Covington, two recent Supreme Court decisions will result in significant changes to the rules that courts will apply in reviewing federal agency actions.

Together, these Supreme Court decisions will make it easier for companies and other parties who can claim harm to challenge agencies’ administrative decisions. At the same time, they are likely to incentivize the agencies to rely more on “voluntary” guidance. 

The two decisions are Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the well-publicized case that reviewed and reversed the Chevron doctrine, and Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which has received less media attention than Loper but could also have significant consequences. 

“Following Loper Bright,” says the Covington article, “questions of statutory interpretation are now fully the province of a reviewing court.”

In Corner Post, the court unanimously upheld a six-year statute of limitations for challenges to agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act but split on the question of when that limit should begin to toll. By a margin of 6-3, the Court held that the measure of the six-year limit starts at the date of the alleged injury, rather than the date that the rule was finalized.

Dissenters bemoaned what they saw as a ruling that gives “every new entity in a regulated industry its own personal statute of limitations to challenge longstanding regulations.” 

The article notes that these Supreme Court decisions raise many questions. Among them: Will agencies, as a result, try to implement strategies that will insulate their decisions from judicial review?  And how, in light of Loper, will Congress adjust its approach to legislation and oversight?