Judicial skepticism of agencies (Roberts Court)
Judicial Skepticism of Agencies under the Roberts Court
Background
The Roberts Court (since 2005) has been noted for its more restrictive approach toward administrative agency power compared to some previous courts.
This skepticism arises from concerns about:
Separation of powers—limiting executive agencies’ lawmaking powers.
The major questions doctrine—agencies cannot decide issues of vast economic or political significance absent clear congressional authorization.
Limiting Chevron deference—courts increasingly question whether to defer to agency statutory interpretations.
Ensuring due process in agency proceedings.
This approach impacts the administrative state’s power and influences how agencies regulate and enforce.
Key Roberts Court Cases Reflecting Judicial Skepticism
1. West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
Facts: EPA’s Clean Power Plan sought to reduce carbon emissions by shifting electricity generation from coal to renewables.
Issue: Whether EPA had clear congressional authority under the Clean Air Act to implement such generation-shifting.
Holding: The Court invalidated EPA’s plan using the major questions doctrine, holding that EPA lacked clear authorization for such sweeping regulatory actions.
Significance: Marked a major judicial pushback against broad agency policymaking on significant issues without explicit congressional mandate, signaling skepticism toward expansive agency power.
2. Kisor v. Wilkie (2019)
Facts: Veteran challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs’ interpretation of its regulations.
Issue: Whether courts should continue to apply Auer deference, which gives agencies deference to interpret their own ambiguous regulations.
Holding: The Court upheld Auer deference but imposed stricter limits on its application, requiring that agency interpretations be reasonable and authoritative.
Significance: Demonstrates judicial caution about deferring too readily to agencies, demanding clearer justifications.
3. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000) (Though pre-Roberts, influential in Roberts era)
Facts: FDA sought authority to regulate tobacco as a drug.
Issue: Whether the FDA had statutory authority under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Holding: The Court held FDA lacked authority, emphasizing Congressional intent and the major questions doctrine.
Significance: Influences Roberts Court’s skepticism by reinforcing limits on agency authority absent clear statutory language.
4. City of Arlington v. FCC (2013)
Facts: Dispute over FCC’s authority to interpret its jurisdiction over telecommunications zoning.
Issue: Whether courts defer to agency interpretation of its own jurisdictional reach.
Holding: The Court upheld Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretations, but this is one of the last major endorsements before a trend of increasing skepticism.
Significance: Represents the boundary between deference and skepticism; Roberts Court has moved more skeptical post-Arlington.
5. King v. Burwell (2015)
Facts: Challenge to IRS regulations allowing tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.
Issue: Whether the IRS had authority to interpret ambiguous statutory language.
Holding: The Court ruled against Chevron deference, interpreting the statute de novo due to the importance of the issue.
Significance: Major example of the Roberts Court applying a form of the major questions doctrine to limit agency deference.
6. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Facts: EPA regulated hazardous air pollutants from power plants without considering costs.
Issue: Whether EPA must consider costs when deciding to regulate.
Holding: The Court ruled that EPA must consider costs, limiting agency discretion.
Significance: Illustrates the Court’s insistence on reasoned agency decision-making with economic considerations, reflecting judicial skepticism about unfettered agency authority.
7. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2023)
Facts: Challenge to regulatory agency’s actions beyond explicit congressional authority.
Issue: Whether agency could interpret its jurisdiction broadly.
Holding: Court applied major questions doctrine and rejected agency overreach.
Significance: Reinforces ongoing Roberts Court trend of judicial skepticism toward agency expansion.
Summary of Roberts Court Skepticism
Major Questions Doctrine: Courts require clear congressional authorization for agencies to decide major political or economic issues.
Chevron and Auer Deference: Roberts Court limits or narrows deference doctrines, requiring agencies to provide strong justification for their interpretations.
Separation of Powers: The Court increasingly acts as a check on administrative agencies’ policymaking, emphasizing the role of Congress.
Economic Considerations: Agencies must carefully consider costs and impacts; the Court scrutinizes arbitrary or capricious decision-making.
Due Process and Fairness: Judicial scrutiny extends to procedural fairness in agency actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments