ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit erred when it vacated several Federal Communications’ Commission orders that, among other things, relaxed agency cross-ownership restrictions. Prometheus Radio Project, which challenges the FCC’s orders, claims that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously because it did not consider how repealing cross-ownership restrictions would affect minority and female ownership of broadcast services. The FCC counters that courts owe the agency substantial deference when it considers multiple policy factors in its rulemaking capacity. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect the scope of judicial review of administrative actions, the integrity of local news coverage, and the diversity of broadcast media.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case, along with its companion case Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, brings before the Supreme Court the question whether the court should overrule, or at least strictly limit, its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Under Chevron, courts defer to reasonable executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. Petitioner Loper Bright Enterprises argues that the Chevron decision contravenes the separation of powers by giving too much power to the executive branch. Respondent Raimondo counters that Chevron is a cornerstone of administrative law and is protected by the principles of stare decisis. The Court's decision on this matter will influence how effective the administrative agencies can regulate corporations and individual behavior and the balance of power between the federal judiciary and the administrative state.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a district court is required to defer to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) without reviewing the validity of the interpretation. Petitioner, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. (“McLaughlin”), argues that the Hobbs Act does not prevent district courts from interpreting the TCPA in private litigation. Respondents, McKesson Corporation and McKesson Technologies, Inc. (collectively “McKesson”), counter that FCC orders are binding and can only be reviewed by a court of appeals. McLaughlin asserts that FCC orders do not bind courts because they are interpretive rules. The outcome of this case will have major implications for the authority of federal administrative agencies. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether a stay should be issued against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) vaccine-or-testing regime for businesses with 100 or more employees. Petitioner the National Federation of Independent Business argues that the Court should stay the emergency temporary standard because it is likely that the emergency temporary standard at issue exceeds OSHA's authority, and the businesses will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. In response, Respondent OSHA argues that Congress explicitly authorizes it to address COVID-19 exposure at the workplace; and therefore, an emergency temporary standard is lawful when OSHA determines, based on substantial evidence, that it is necessary to address the immediate risk of COVID-19. The Court’s decision on this case could have significant impacts on the economy, constitutionally protected liberties, and public health.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether settlement with a school satisfies the exhaustion requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) so that a student might bring a claim for monetary damages in a district court. Miguel Luna Perez asserts that IDEA’s exhaustion is satisfied by a settlement with a school, not only by a decision on the merits. Perez further argues that requiring individuals to exhaust their claims in lieu of settlement would be futile. Further, Perez asserts that allowing non-IDEA claims to proceed without IDEA exhaustion would not cause individuals to bypass the administrative IDEA process. Sturgis Public Schools and Sturgis Board of Education (“Sturgis”) counter that settlement is insufficient for exhaustion requirements especially when the individual seeks monetary damages. Sturgis further contends that allowing non-IDEA claims to proceed without IDEA exhaustion might result in parents seeking monetary damages in the courts to the detriment of their child’s free appropriate public education. The outcome of this case has important implications on the substantive rights of children with disabilities in terms of the dispute resolution proceedings between the schools and parents. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case, along with its companion case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, asks the Supreme Court to consider the government’s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the reach and constitutionality of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Under Chevron, courts defer to reasonable executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. Relentless, Inc. contends that the partial industry funding component of the government’s at-sea monitors program relies on a faulty interpretation of the governing statute, and that Chevron deference itself is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers and an abdication of interpretive responsibility by the judiciary. The Department of Commerce counters that its interpretation of the statute is both correct and  entitled to deference. The outcome of this case could have seismic consequences for administrative law, statutory interpretation, and the balance of power between the federal judiciary and the administrative state.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the jurisdiction granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) by the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) to regulate wetlands. One test for determining whether a wetland falls under the CWA is the continuous surface connection test, which allows a wetland to be regulated when it shares a continuous surface connection with a body of water. Another test is the significant nexus test, which allows an adjacent wetland to be regulated when it significantly affects waters covered under the CWA, regardless of a surface connection between them. The Sacketts assert that, under the principles of statutory interpretation and congressional intent, a version of the continuous surface connection test is proper and therefore their lot of land does not fall under the jurisdiction of the CWA. The EPA counters that due to judicial deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of statutes, the significant nexus test is the proper test, and therefore the Sacketts’ land does fall under the jurisdiction of the CWA. The Court’s decision in this case implicates the costs which industries must bear for their infrastructure, the allocation of state and federal power, and the protection of water quality across the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider the statutory limitations imposed on the Environmental Protection Agency by the Clean Air Act when it attempts to regulate emissions emanating from stationary sources. Petitioner West Virginia argues that the Court should not allow the EPA to issue significant rules that can reshape the country’s electricity grids and thus expand the agency’s power to an unprecedented level. Respondent the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) responds that the Court should not read into the text an artificial restriction because any qualification will be directed at the states, not the federal agency. The Court’s decision in this case has heavy implications for the scope of federal administrative power, climate change policy, and statutory interpretation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources