The Supreme Court unleashes a wave of lawsuits against federal regulations

In a case that has been closely watched this past term, the Supreme Court jettisoned a longstanding legal doctrine that had given agencies broad latitude to make rules even without express direction from Congress. The justices also limited how certain federal watchdogs can prosecute alleged violators, and they opened the door for some companies to file new lawsuits over apparently established government rules, some of which were decades old.

Since then, the three separate yet intertwined rulings have spawned a flood of lawsuits, mostly against conservative and corporate interests chafing at the power of the federal bureaucracy. Between June and mid-October, the cases led to more than 150 new or pending legal challenges, according to court filings analyzed by The Washington Post and data collected by Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy group that had urged the Supreme Court to rule differently. . The new citations include new and updated lawsuits, briefings and rulings.

The lawsuits touch virtually every aspect of the U.S. economy, especially federal labor law. Major companies, including Amazon and SpaceX, and leading lobby groups for restaurants and other industries, have incorporated elements of the new Supreme Court rulings in a series of lawsuits challenging regulations on wages, overtime, whistleblower protections or union organizing, according to a report court records. . (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)

Lobby groups for AT&T and Verizon have cited the opinions in their campaign to thwart federal regulations that would prevent them from disrupting Internet traffic. Airlines including American, Delta and United have pointed to one of the cases to avoid the government requiring them to disclose baggage fees.

The wave of legal challenges illustrates the tectonic shifts underway in Washington as voters cast their ballots in a highly contentious presidential contest.

As he did during his first term, former President Donald Trump has broadly called for a rollback of a wide range of federal climate, education, health care and labor regulations, arguing that they hinder economic growth. Vice President Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has called for new federal initiatives to combat fraud, combat high fees and reduce the costs Americans face for prescriptions and other supplies.

The victor will face important, early decisions about which rules to issue or repeal, and which judges to appoint to settle disputes about them. All these choices will unfold in a vastly changed legal landscape, after the Supreme Court struck down a long-standing shield from federal regulation.

For roughly four decades, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council essentially directed judges to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law, on the grounds that those regulators could inaccurately determine the intentions of a could best understand Congress. But in June, the court jettisoned that framework, known as the Chevron Doctrine, sending shockwaves through the legal system.

Republican policymakers quickly seized on the development as they battle the Biden administration, focusing on its initiatives on climate change and its protections for transgender students. Major companies also tried to take advantage of the rulings by attacking the government agencies that oversee them.

In October, for example, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of KalshiEx, a gambling website that initially wanted to allow bets of up to $100 million on the outcome of the presidential election. Regulators viewed such betting as an emerging threat to democracy, but the justices sided with the company, which had argued that Congress had never explicitly given the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority to ban the practice.

An organization representing insurance marketers has sought to capitalize on the ruling in its long battle with the Federal Communications Commission over robocalls. After the agency tried to crack down on some of the unwanted, automated contacts, the Insurance Marketing Coalition told a federal judge in August that regulators did not have Congress’ permission to issue such rules, citing the destruction of Chevron by the Supreme Court.

NCLA, a conservative-leaning group, has tried for years to remove Chevron. The group has served as counsel for Relentless, a fishing company that has filed a lawsuit over federal rules requiring such companies to pay for federal monitors. The Supreme Court heard his arguments along with another company, Loper Bright, which charged that Congress never gave the Commerce Department explicit power to require industry-funded oversight.

“I don’t think there’s been enough time to really fully understand the effects,” Chenoweth said of the aftermath, noting that lower courts have yet to rule on Relentless and Loper Bright’s original claims. But he predicted the cases would have a “disciplining effect” on regulators in general.

In the immediate aftermath, some conservative groups and major corporations have been particularly quick to use the Supreme Court’s rulings against the Ministry of Labor, aiming to a wide range of rules issued under Biden that aim to protect workers and their wages.

The Restaurant Law Center has for years opposed Biden-era rules that aim to increase wages for tipped workers. But the group, whose board of directors includes executives from Chipotle and Yum! Brands included Loper Bright’s decision in July in its broad legal strategy, prompting an appeals court to abolish the government’s policy a month later.

The decision left some experts fearful for the future of federal labor law.

“Congress will need to quickly adapt to policymaking that takes this new legal landscape into account,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward.