The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of regulatory agencies and their authority to enforce regulations in our Republic.

The Court has held that agencies must adhere to certain procedural requirements, including the necessity of legislative approval for significant regulations in some contexts.

Legislative Approval

• Legislative Basis: Agencies derive their regulatory powers from enabling legislation passed by Congress or state legislatures. This legislation often outlines the broad authority granted to the agency.

Judicial Oversight

• Court Rulings: The Supreme Court has ruled that agencies cannot enforce rules that are deemed significantly impactful without congressional or legislative backing. This ensures that there is accountability and representation in the regulatory process.

Major Questions Doctrine

• Recent Developments: In recent years, the Court has invoked the “major questions doctrine,” indicating that agencies may have limited authority to regulate major issues unless explicitly authorized by Congress.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

• Rule Validity: If an agency enacts a rule without proper legislative authority, such rules may be challenged and potentially invalidated in court.

Summary of Implications

1. Chevron Deference Overturned: The ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo marked a significant shift by rejecting the Chevron doctrine, which previously allowed courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This decision empowers courts to interpret laws themselves, potentially increasing scrutiny of agency regulations.
2. Challenges to Longstanding Regulations: The Corner Post ruling opens the door for challenges to older regulations by clarifying how and when claims against federal actions under the APA can be made. This could lead to more judicial reviews of established rules.
3. Major Questions Doctrine: Both West Virginia v. EPA and Biden v. Nebraska illustrate the Court’s emphasis on the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for agencies to regulate significant political and economic issues. This doctrine limits agency power considerably, necessitating explicit guidelines from Congress before agencies can act.

These rulings collectively signal a potential change in how regulatory power is balanced between legislative intentions and agency actions, encouraging more robust Congressional oversight.