Regulatory Settlement, Stare Decisis, and Loper Bright
In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court adopted and deployed a particular narrative about agency action in support of overruling Chevron: Agencies reverse their own statutory interpretations “as much as [they] like[],” creating pervasive instability in the law, thereby destroying private reliance interests. Based on a study of two decades of agency regulations affirmed […]The postRegulatory Settlement, Stare Decisis, and Loper Brightappeared first onNYU Law Review.
In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court adopted and deployed a particular narrative about agency action in support of overruling Chevron: Agencies reverse their own statutory interpretations “as much as [they] like[],” creating pervasive instability in the law, thereby destroying private reliance interests. Based on a study of two decades of agency regulations affirmed […]The postRegulatory Settlement, Stare Decisis, and Loper Brightappeared first onNYU Law Review.
Executive Summary
The article 'Regulatory Settlement, Stare Decisis, and Loper Bright' critically examines the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron deference. The article challenges the Court's narrative that agencies frequently reverse their own statutory interpretations, causing instability in the law. Through an empirical study of two decades of agency regulations, the authors argue that the Court's rationale for overturning Chevron is not supported by evidence. The article explores the implications of this decision on regulatory settlement, stare decisis, and the broader legal landscape.
Key Points
- ▸ The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo overruled Chevron deference based on a narrative of agency instability.
- ▸ The article presents empirical evidence challenging the Court's narrative of frequent agency reversals.
- ▸ The authors discuss the implications of the decision on regulatory settlement and stare decisis.
Merits
Empirical Evidence
The article strengthens its argument with empirical data, providing a robust counter-narrative to the Supreme Court's rationale.
Critical Analysis
The authors offer a nuanced and critical analysis of the Supreme Court's decision, highlighting the potential consequences for regulatory stability.
Demerits
Scope of Study
The study focuses on a specific subset of agency regulations, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Potential Bias
The authors' critical stance on the Supreme Court's decision might introduce a degree of bias, which could be addressed with a more balanced discussion.
Expert Commentary
The article 'Regulatory Settlement, Stare Decisis, and Loper Bright' provides a timely and rigorous critique of the Supreme Court's recent decision to overrule Chevron deference. The authors' empirical study offers a valuable counterpoint to the Court's narrative, demonstrating that agency reversals are not as pervasive as suggested. This analysis is particularly important given the potential implications for regulatory stability and the rule of law. The article's findings suggest that the Court's decision may have been premature and could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased litigation and regulatory uncertainty. The authors' call for a more evidence-based approach to administrative law is well-founded and deserves serious consideration by both the judiciary and policymakers. However, the study's scope and potential bias should be acknowledged, and future research could benefit from a more comprehensive analysis of agency actions across different regulatory domains.
Recommendations
- ✓ Future research should expand the scope of empirical studies to include a broader range of agency regulations and time periods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of agency behavior.
- ✓ The judiciary and policymakers should consider the empirical evidence when evaluating the need for judicial deference and the stability of agency regulations.
