Key points:
- The Supreme Court's 2023 term featured decisions that significantly curtailed federal agencies' regulatory powers.
- In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court ruled that the SEC cannot impose civil penalties through its own administrative proceedings.
- The Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, ending judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 term marked a pivotal shift in administrative law, delivering decisions that substantially limit the regulatory authority of federal agencies. These rulings have profound implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary, as well as for the regulated entities.
**
SEC v. Jarkesy: Restricting Agency Adjudication**
In
SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court addressed the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of administrative law judges to impose civil penalties. The Court held that such in-house adjudications violate the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial, thereby requiring the SEC to pursue enforcement actions in federal courts. This decision challenges the longstanding practice of agencies conducting internal proceedings to enforce regulations. ([cooley.com](https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-07-26-us-supreme-courts-october-2023-term-administrative-law-trilogy-holdings-analyses-and-implications-of-jarkesy-loper-bright-and-corner-post?utm_source=openai))
**
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: Overturning
Chevron Deference**
In another landmark case,
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overturned the 40-year-old
Chevron doctrine, which mandated judicial deference to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Court's decision emphasizes that it is the judiciary's role to interpret the law, thereby curbing agencies' ability to expand their regulatory reach through statutory interpretation. ([jw.com](https://www.jw.com/news/insights-supreme-court-chevron-overturned/?utm_source=openai))
**Implications for Federal Agencies and Regulated Entities**
These decisions collectively signal a significant retraction of federal agencies' regulatory powers. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may now face increased judicial scrutiny and limitations in enforcing regulations. For instance, the Court's ruling in
Sackett v. EPA restricted the EPA's authority over certain wetlands, indicating a trend toward narrowing the scope of agency jurisdiction. ([axios.com](https://www.axios.com/2023/05/25/supreme-court-epa-wetlands-clean-water-act?utm_source=openai))
**Looking Ahead**
The Supreme Court's recent rulings suggest a judicial inclination toward reinforcing the separation of powers by limiting executive agencies' authority. This shift is likely to prompt agencies to seek clearer statutory mandates from Congress and may lead to increased litigation as regulated entities challenge agency actions. Legal professionals should closely monitor these developments to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape effectively.