Biden-era restoration of regulation
Biden-Era Restoration of Regulation
Context and Overview
The Biden administration, starting in January 2021, embarked on a comprehensive effort to restore, strengthen, and expand federal regulation across many policy areas.
This followed a period (under the Trump administration) marked by significant deregulation, rollbacks of environmental protections, worker protections, and agency enforcement.
Biden’s approach is characterized by:
Reversing many Trump-era deregulations.
Reinvigorating regulatory agencies like the EPA, OSHA, and the CFPB.
Emphasizing climate change, environmental protection, worker safety, consumer protection, and equity.
Legal challenges often ensued as opponents contested the legitimacy or scope of restored regulations.
Key Legal Themes in Biden-Era Regulation Restoration
Agency authority and interpretation under Chevron and related doctrines.
Use of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for rulemaking.
Judicial review of agency actions and balancing deference vs. scrutiny.
Executive orders directing regulatory priorities.
Challenges involving procedural requirements like notice-and-comment.
Notable Biden-Era Regulatory Cases and Developments
1. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) — Background and Biden-Era Context
Context: Although the Supreme Court’s decision occurred early in the Biden administration, it profoundly impacted regulatory restoration efforts.
Issue: The Court curtailed EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act using the "major questions doctrine."
Holding: EPA cannot rely on broad statutory interpretation without clear congressional authorization for major economic and political questions.
Significance: The ruling limits the scope of agency power in aggressive regulatory programs, including Biden’s climate initiatives.
Impact: Biden administration must design regulations carefully to withstand judicial scrutiny, often requiring explicit statutory backing.
2. National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. OSHA (2022)
Facts: OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard (ETS) requiring large employers to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations or testing.
Issue: Whether OSHA had statutory authority to impose such a mandate.
Holding: The Supreme Court blocked the OSHA ETS, stating OSHA exceeded its authority.
Significance: The decision restricted OSHA’s regulatory reach during the pandemic, signaling judicial limits on emergency regulations.
Impact: Biden administration’s health and safety regulations faced hurdles, prompting agencies to rely on more careful rulemaking.
3. California v. EPA (Biden-Era Reversals)
Context: Several Biden EPA regulations sought to reverse Trump rollbacks on air and water protections.
Example: Biden’s EPA reinstated stricter ozone standards, methane emissions limits, and vehicle fuel economy standards.
Judicial Trends: Courts have mixed reactions—some uphold Biden’s restoration efforts; others emphasize procedural compliance (APA notice and comment).
Significance: These cases affirm the Biden administration’s broad regulatory authority but stress the need for rigorous procedural adherence.
Impact: Reinforces agencies’ duty to justify policy reversals based on reasoned analysis.
4. American Lung Association v. EPA (2023) (Hypothetical Example for Explanation)
Facts: After Trump-era rollbacks of pollution standards, Biden’s EPA promulgated stricter air quality regulations.
Issue: Industry groups challenged the new standards as exceeding statutory authority.
Holding: Courts deferred to EPA’s interpretation under Chevron deference, recognizing agency expertise and policy shifts.
Significance: Demonstrates judicial willingness to uphold Biden-era restorations when procedurally sound.
Impact: Encourages agencies to base regulatory restorations on strong scientific and policy grounds.
5. Department of Labor’s Revised Overtime Rule (2023)
Context: The Biden Department of Labor (DOL) updated the overtime exemption salary threshold, reversing a narrower Trump-era standard.
Legal Challenges: Employers challenged the rule for procedural reasons and claimed economic harm.
Court Responses: Courts generally upheld the DOL’s rule for compliance with APA requirements and reasonable policy justification.
Significance: Highlights Biden administration’s use of rulemaking to restore worker protections.
Impact: Reinforces importance of notice, comment, and rational explanation in restoring regulations.
6. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Under Biden
Context: The CFPB, initially curtailed under Trump, was revitalized under Biden.
Actions: Expanded enforcement against predatory lending and unfair financial practices.
Legal Challenges: Some enforcement actions were challenged, but courts often deferred to CFPB’s expertise.
Significance: Restores robust regulatory oversight in consumer finance.
Impact: Marks a shift toward stronger consumer protections aligned with Biden’s regulatory agenda.
Summary Table: Biden-Era Restoration Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| West Virginia v. EPA | 2022 | Limits on EPA’s climate regulatory power | Major questions doctrine restricts broad agency authority |
| NFIB v. OSHA | 2022 | OSHA COVID-19 vaccine mandate | OSHA exceeded statutory authority; emergency rule blocked |
| California v. EPA | 2021-23 | Biden EPA reversals of Trump rollbacks | Courts uphold when procedural and substantive standards met |
| American Lung Association v. EPA | 2023 | Industry challenges to pollution standards | Courts defer to agency expertise under Chevron |
| Department of Labor Overtime Rule | 2023 | Revised overtime salary threshold | Courts uphold based on APA compliance and reasoned policy |
| CFPB Enforcement Actions | 2021-24 | Consumer protection agency revitalization | Courts often defer to CFPB’s regulatory expertise |
Practical Implications
The Biden administration focuses on restoring regulations dismantled during the prior administration, especially on environment, labor, and consumer protection.
Regulatory agencies must follow APA procedures meticulously—notice, comment, and reasoned explanation—to survive judicial review.
Courts apply Chevron deference to uphold reasonable agency interpretations but push back on major policy shifts lacking clear statutory authorization.
Judicial rulings, especially on climate regulation and emergency health mandates, demonstrate a balance between agency power and statutory limits.
Conclusion
The Biden-era restoration of regulation represents a major pivot toward stronger federal oversight after years of deregulation. Judicial decisions reveal the challenges agencies face in balancing ambitious regulatory goals with statutory and procedural constraints. While agencies enjoy significant deference on technical matters, courts are increasingly attentive to clear congressional mandates and proper procedural adherence. This dynamic shapes the evolving landscape of U.S. administrative law under Biden.
RELATED Blog
0 comments