Poetry always beats Godzilla!

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

So with the weak administrative state is the supreme court likely to assume more power? Thought for 36s Yes — relative to the administrative agencies, the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) have already gained interpretive power, and further weakening of the administrative state is likely to reinforce that shift.The clearest mechanism is the 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron deference. Under Chevron, courts deferred to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes it administered. Loper Bright requires courts to exercise independent judgment and determine the “best reading” of the statute themselves (with residual Skidmore “respect” for agency views and deference only where Congress has clearly delegated discretion). ballotpedia.org This transfers a meaningful share of the “say what the law is” role from agencies to judges. Combined with the major questions doctrine (which requires clear congressional authorization for actions of vast economic or political significance), courts now police the outer boundaries of agency authority more aggressively. Analyses note that Loper Bright has already been invoked in scores of regulatory actions, and lower courts are applying de novo review more often, though early data show agency win rates have not collapsed. bipartisanpolicy.org A weaker administrative state amplifies this dynamic for several reasons:Reduced agency capacity, political insulation (via Schedule Policy/Career and related personnel changes), and independent-agency protections make expansive or novel interpretations harder to sustain and easier to challenge. More disputes over statutory meaning land in Article III courts rather than being resolved inside the executive branch under a deference regime. The Court has simultaneously expanded presidential removal power over independent agency heads (e.g., Trump v. Slaughter), concentrating control in the White House while still subjecting statutory interpretation to judicial review. This is a unitary-executive move that weakens traditional independent agencies more than it empowers them relative to courts. It is not a pure zero-sum transfer of all power to the Supreme Court. Policy discretion that Congress clearly delegates stays with the executive; courts still defer on many applications of law to facts; and the bulk of day-to-day review happens in the lower courts. Power that leaves agencies can also flow back to the President (execution) or Congress (if it writes clearer statutes). Critics describe the overall trend as a judicial “power grab”; defenders frame it as restoring the constitutional allocation in which judges interpret law and the political branches make and execute policy. nybooks.com In short, the combination of Loper Bright, the major questions doctrine, and deliberate efforts to shrink and politicize the administrative state has already increased the relative influence of the courts over the legal limits of agency action, and that trajectory is likely to continue.