How the new Supreme Court could stymie a Biden presidency

Trump's Supreme Court pick to start confirmation hearing on Oct. 12

Such a change would please conservatives who are disappointed with Washington’s growing network of agencies and regulations – too often, they say, unbound from certain directions in Congress. Liberals counter, however, that long-abandoned legal theories should not prevent elected leaders and their appointees from facing the challenges and realizing the will of the electorate.

“Without question, a 6-3 court ruled by right-wing and corporate interests could shut down much of the progressive agenda if it could go with impunity,” said former Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), President of the progressive legal not for profit the American Constitution Society. “Clean water, clean air, food and drug safety, regulation of the health and health insurance industry, consumer protection and workers’ rights (up to and including the right to organize) are at stake in this scenario.”

Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said the expansion of the existing conservative five-person bloc of the court made it all the more likely that once unorthodox views of government power would prevail.

“What’s special about a 6-3 court compared to a 5-4 court is that you only have more wiggle room for madmen,” said Bagley, noting the results of several high profile Supreme Court cases in the past Years turned around because of only one conservative defect. “I just think people dramatically underestimate the aggressiveness and zeal of the conservative right-wing movement.”

Conservative legal scholar Jonathan Adler agreed that the new lineup of the Supreme Court could soon be ready to put more limits on federal power than it has in the recent past. But he said it was unlikely to create any of Liberals’ worst fears – a return to the early decades of the 20th century when the Supreme Court repeatedly enacted rules and laws regulating wages, hours and other labor policies.

“You are not going to endorse a broad libertarian theory of the constitution,” said Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

The attacks on the regulatory state could include two main arguments that conservative lawyers and judges have put forward over the past few decades: The courts have given the authorities too much leeway to write rules that go beyond what the legislature requires. At the same time, it is said, a dysfunctional congress too often writes vague laws that leave important political decisions to the bureaucracy.

A more conservative SCOTUS could go well beyond simply withdrawing individual regulations – like the Obama-era climate, air pollution, and car safety – by putting tighter limits on agencies and limiting the power Congress can delegate to the executive and water protection rules that Trump reversed. It may also be more difficult for future democratic administrations to enact new ones, even with legislative support.

But it could also mean less litigation in the future if Congress passes legislation with clearer directions for agencies, some conservatives claim.

“There shouldn’t be so much litigation over very important rules,” said Misha Tseytlin, partner at Troutman Pepper and former Wisconsin attorney general who challenged the Obama administration’s EPA regulations. “The rules should be to fill out the details of the directives passed by Congress, rather than having wild policy fluctuations when you have a change of administration where you have exactly the same law on the books.”

Celebrate like 1935

There are “two big gorillas in the room” when it comes to the legal arguments the Supreme Court might use to curb the executive, Tseytlin said.

The first, known as the “non-delegation doctrine,” allows judges to legislate too vaguely the powers they grant the executive. The court only used it twice to strike bills, both times related to New Deal programs in 1935, but five seated judges have expressed an interest in a rejuvenation.

It’s “a real sleeping area,” said Tseytlin. “If a law violates nondelegation doctrine, the law is invalid and is completely put down.”

The doctrine states that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the executive when it passes laws, at least not without some “understandable principle” about running an agency. In 2001, Justice was Antonin Scalia declined an attempt to use the doctrine to remove the Environmental Protection Agency’s air pollution regulations. But two decades later, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court seems to be advocating going the other way.

The court did one last year broken judgment in a challenge to a Sex Offender Registration Act that became a test case for non-delegation. With just eight judges involved in the decision, the conservative wing could muster only four who expressed an interest in a more aggressive application of the doctrine, including Trump-appointed Neil Gorsuch.

Trump-appointed Brett Kavanaugh, who did not participate in this decision, later wrote that Gorsuch’s argument “may warrant further consideration in future cases”. And with Trump’s Supreme Court candidate likely to join the court, the way would be paved for action, said Aaron-Andrew Bruhl, a law professor at William and Mary Law School.

Liberals have raised the alarm about the possible fallout if the court started rejecting laws that delegate important decisions to the executive branch because that would cover many of the laws that Congress has passed over the decades. The Affordable Care Act, for example, has required thousands of pages of regulations outlining the details of insurance coverage rules, anti-discrimination protection, and even expanding Medicaid.

In the case of sex offenders, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that if the law in question was unconstitutional under the doctrine of non-delegation, “most of the government is unconstitutional”.

“The difficult thing is that it can be really disruptive if you want to set serious limits on the congress delegation,” said Brühl. “So much of the existing regulatory structure depends on the delegation.”

To avoid the potentially catastrophic consequences that could result from a major abolition of laws, the Supreme Court could instead interpret these laws to give narrow powers to the agencies. This would strengthen the judges’ ability to reject expansive implementing provisions while at the same time circumventing constitutional concerns, Brühl said.

The end of reverence

A related conservative argument seeks to “Chevron Doctrine, ”which was critical to complying with key federal regulations on issues ranging from climate change to health care to wage tax.

The doctrine arises from a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in 1984, Chevron Vs Defense Council for Natural Resources, that courts have applied to all types of executive action among both Republicans and Democrats. The judges must examine whether a law governing the agency’s actions is ambiguous – and, if so, postpone the agency’s interpretation as long as it falls within the broad range of reasonableness.

Adler initially said the Supreme Court decision wowed Republican presidents because it ruled the DC Circuit’s powerful appeals court, which reviews many federal regulations and was seen as an “activist and progressive” bank four decades ago.

Chevron was built and endorsed and strengthened by the Reagan and the first Bush administrations because they saw it as a way to make it easier for a conservative government to introduce more flexible regulatory policies that would otherwise be blocked by an initially quite progressive DC circuit. Said Adler.

But in recent years, especially under the Obama administration, conservatives have become critical Chevron for the assignment of judicial powers of interpretation to the executive branch. Republican twice in 2016 and 2017 adopted legislation break up Chevron Homage, even though it never made it through the Senate.

Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas have both criticized the doctrine while Kavanaugh said during his confirmation that he would remove any regulation “that is outside the limits of what the laws passed by Congress have said.”

Barrett hasn’t specifically spoken about whether or how Chevron Reverence should be limited. But in a dispute earlier that year over the Trump administration’s public indictment, it broke off from two other judges and agreed to postpone to the agency and shows how judges can use Chevron to comply with conservative regulations.

Visit again Chevron is “a prime candidate for change that will change the way we think about governance,” said Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, a free market think tank. Because it kind of restricts the judiciary Chevron This can lead to a “bouncing ball” effect, as changes in the political control of the executive cause agencies to often reverse their regulatory decisions, argued May.

A recent example concerns net neutrality, an effort by the Obama administration to forbid Internet service providers from restricting or preferring certain types of content on their networks. The Obama-era Federal Communications Commission used an ambiguous law to classify ISPs as subject to regulation, a move the DC Circuit cited in 2016, citing Chevron. Under Trump, the FCC reversed this call for guidelines – and the DC Circuit reaffirmed it based on Chevron.

Limit Chevron Reverence can become even more important if Joe Biden wins the White House but the Democrats fail to capture the Senate or pass new laws. In that case, Bruhl said, Biden would have to drive policy on important issues like climate change through existing laws – but it could have a much harder time than Obama withstanding the inevitable legal challenges.

For the moment, Chevron survived, even with the current conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Katie Keith, a health law expert at Georgetown University, noted that federal judges – including those recently appointed by Trump – have indeed shown significant consideration of government action in several high-stakes cases. These include rulings in which judges rejected attempts to prevent the Trump administration from increasing hospital price transparency and allowing insurance plans that do not meet Obamacare’s coverage requirements.

But Keith suspects that could change if the White House falls over in November.

“If it’s Biden, I think they are really pushing this and doing everything they can to restrict the administrative state,” she said. “That has been a goal for a long time.”

Limit or even quit Chevron Reverence could backfire, some experts have warned – it could give liberal judges more power to put down actions by Republican governments. May admitted that this could happen in certain cases but said he supported the withholding Chevron primarily because of concerns about the separation of powers.

Visit again Lochner

A broader question concerns whether a Conservative Supreme Court would return the US to the so-called Lochner epochIn the period from the 1890s to 1937, when the judges repeatedly laid down the rules for businesses and jobs. A Trump-appointed Pennsylvania federal judge raised his eyebrows earlier this month as he laid down the state’s coronavirus-related shutdown guidelines citing the 1905 Lochner case that gave the era its name.

In these unprecedented times, courts could revive some limits on government powers that have not been imposed in a while, Adler said. But that does not mean Lochner is back with a vengeance.

“Are we going to see what someone would characterize as real laissez-faire justice, which says that no government at any level can regulate certain things?” He said: “I think that’s very unlikely, given who’s on the pitch and the people talked about as a possible replacement for Ginsburg.”

Other court watchers say the conservatives at the bank simply haven’t decided which path to take to obstruct the government regulator.

“There really is a fundamental wave of conservative lawyers trying to undo this strong respect the courts have shown the agencies, but so far they haven’t agreed on what the alternative should be,” said Ryan Owens , Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who wants the courts to limit the authority of the authorities to set rules and regulations. “That’s the only thing that really hangs that up.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here