Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
A recent memo issued by the White House highlights the top ten Supreme Court rulings that federal agencies are expected to adhere to. This directive has led legal analysts to express optimism about the potential for reforming what some refer to as the administrative state, while others remain dubious about the enforceability of this initiative.
“An administration that truly values adherence to the law should diligently review regulations,” stated Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network. She emphasized the importance of limiting government powers, believing that the memorandum reflects a renewed commitment to protect constitutional boundaries.
The administration’s memo, issued on April 9, mandates agencies to revoke regulations that do not align with ten recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the legitimate functions of administrative agencies.
Trump’s Directive Aligns With Wider Deregulatory Goals
The memo, entitled “President Donald J. Trump Directs Repeal of Regulations That Are Unlawful Under 10 Recent Supreme Court Decisions,” reinforces a February executive order aimed at curtailing the reach of the administrative state. The memo identifies various significant Supreme Court cases that resonate with Trump’s deregulatory agenda, as well as initiatives to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
Some of the notable cases mentioned are Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia v. EPA, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Both Loper Bright and West Virginia narrowly defined the authority of executive agencies with regards to creating regulations that impact the American public. Meanwhile, the case involving Students for Fair Admissions rejected the use of affirmative action in university admissions.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers voiced support for the directive. She underscored the necessity for agencies to rescind regulations identified by the Supreme Court as unlawful, reiterating the President’s commitment to rollback governmental regulations that stifle American enterprise.
While many of the cases cited do not apply retroactively, meaning that pre-existing regulations remain unaffected by these rulings, experts suggest that agencies might revisit past rules under the revised legal framework established by the Supreme Court.
Experts Anticipate Revisions to Previous Regulatory Practices
Daniel Huff, a senior legal fellow at the American Path Initiative, speculated on the potential impacts of the memo. He noted, “This gives agencies a good foundation to assess where significant regulatory compliance burdens might have been created without substantial justification. They will need to devise strategies for undoing those burdens where appropriate.”
Kara Rollins, an attorney for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, highlighted the importance of a comprehensive review of previous regulations. She argued that a meticulous retrospective examination could yield valuable insights to better align future agency actions with constitutional limits.
Nevertheless, Rollins raised concerns regarding the administration’s ability to enforce the directive effectively, especially given the presence of numerous ongoing legal challenges that predate the Supreme Court’s recent rulings. She questioned how these cases will be managed in light of this new directive, fostering uncertainty among litigators.
“The pressing inquiry is about how active lawsuits—where the Department of Justice or other agencies might be advocating positions contrary to this memo—will be addressed,” Rollins explained. She emphasized the need for agencies to reassess their litigation positions to reflect the directive.
Challenges Ahead for Implementing Change
There is a palpable tension between the administration’s avowed goals and actual practices on the ground, according to Rollins. She noted that failure to adjust agency positions could indicate significant discrepancies between declared intentions and their implementation.
The memo advises agencies to utilize the “good cause” exception within the Administrative Procedure Act when appropriate. This provision allows for the bypassing of the standard notice-and-comment rulemaking process in cases deemed to be in the interest of the public. The typical process allows time for public feedback concerning proposed rules.
Huff pointed out that the need for the regular rulemaking process may diminish since agencies are primarily tasked with reassessing prior regulations instead of developing new ones. He clarified, “This isn’t about adding new burdens; it’s about reinstating previous regulatory standards. It’s about reverting to the original status quo that many are already familiar with.”
Severino acknowledged that while the memo’s language permits broad application of the good cause exception, the potential for legal challenges remains. She indicated that compelling arguments exist for upholding constitutional boundaries in governance while serving the public interest.
Looking Forward: The Path to Restoring Regulatory Integrity
As agencies prepare to implement these changes, analysts assert that vigilance will be necessary to ensure compliance with the directive. Time will reveal how effectively the administration can persuade agencies to reconsider existing regulations and how the legal landscape will evolve in response. The interplay between executive directives and judicial rulings will ultimately determine the shape of federal regulatory policies in the years to come.
