SCOTUS Gives the Right Weapon to ‘Devastate’ the Federal Government

The conservative Supreme Court majority showed they are doing their best to help destroy the federal government with a 6-3 decision in the Corner Post Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

This ruling “allows plaintiffs to challenge an agency action LONG after it has been finalized. All three liberals dissent.”

The Supreme Court’s first decision is Corner Post. By a 6–3 vote, the majority allows plaintiffs to challenge an agency action LONG after it has been finalized. All three liberals dissent. https://t.co/qhqNwBmmxa pic.twitter.com/szz3VqG81B

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 1, 2024

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent: “At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the
potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.

Even more to the present point, that result simply cannot be what Congress intended when it enacted legislation that stood up and funded federal agencies and vested them with authority to set the ground rules for the individuals and entities that participate in the our economy and our society. It is utterly inconceivable that §2401(a)’s statute of limitations was meant to permit fresh attacks on settled regulations from all new comers forever. Yet, that is what the majority holds today.”

Jackson does offer a solution, but it means Congress would have to do its job to protect the U.S. government, and that won’t happen with a Republican majority.

“But Congress still has a chance to address this absurdity and forestall the coming chaos. It can opt to correct this Court’s mistake by clarifying that the statutes it enacts are designed to facilitate the functioning of agencies, not to hobble them. In particular, Congress can amend §2401(a), or enact a specific review provision for APA claims, to state explicitly what any such rule must mean if it is to operate as a limitations period in this context: Regulated entities have six years from the date of the agency action to bring a lawsuit seeking to have it changed or invalidated; after that, facial challenges must end.”

Coupled with the overturning of Chevron, this is “major,” Neal Katyal Neal Katyal shared:

“While we wait on the Trump immunity case, but the Court just decided a decision making it much easier to sue agencies, and that decision, coupled with the overturning of Chevron, is major. This is what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said today: “At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”

Jackson points out this allows well-heeled litigants (you know, like the people who secretly fund Justice Clarence Thomas’ lifestyle) to game the system.

“Today’s ruling is not only baseless. It is also extraordinarily consequential. In one fell swoop, the Court has effectively eliminated any limitations period for APA lawsuits, despite Congress’s unmistakable policy determination to cut off such suits within six years of the final agency action. The Court has decided that the clock starts for limitations
purposes whenever a new regulated entity is created. This means that, from this day forward, administrative agencies can be sued in perpetuity over every final decision they make.

The majority’s ruling makes legal challenges to decades-old agency decisions fair game, even though courts of appeals had previously applied §2401(a) to find untimely arange of belated APA challenges.”

The three “progressives” (not sure these justices are progressives, they are pro-human rights, but perhaps things have shifted so far to the right that we now call anyone who doesn’t want to kill the great promise and experiment of the United States “progressives”), that is to say, the three non-activist members of the court, dissented.

“First opinion, Corner Post, concerns when a challenge to agency action comes into being. Court 6-3, Barrett w/ 3 progressives dissenting, hold when plaintiff is injured. Dissent says it effectively does away w/ any limitations period.”

This ruling is about limiting the power of the government and even making it so dysfunctional via lawsuits that it is effectively neutered in power. It’s also about giving “business” – i.e., BIG BUSINESS, the ability to function without rules.

“…the Supreme Court’s 6 Republican appointees’ agenda/legacy of hobbling the ability of administrative agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests on Friday. Today’s Corner Post adds a 3rd such ruling in 3 decision day,” Charlie Savage wrote over a gift link to his piece in the NYT.

This is crazy.

“This is crazy. It means that agency rules are never settled, even if they have been in effect for a long time and people/companies have acted in reliance on them. A newly created entity that is “affected” by the rule can challenge it. Why do I have a feeling there will suddenly be some new “entities” that are created precisely for this purpose?” Asha Rangappa added.

What this really means is that this court is a danger to the United States government. That isn’t meant as hyperbole, but rather that instead of worrying about President Biden’s age, we should be pushing him to fix this court in his next term.

It also means people need to vote for freedom-supporting people-first candidates down ballot all of the way, so that Congress can fix this.

This is absolutely dysfunctional, unworkable, and absurd. It’s beyond catering to big business; it’s undermining the POINT of our government because big business steals, poisons and even kills people for profit for as long as they’re allowed. The government is supposed to help protect the people from the greed of big money. That is the essential purpose of regulations.

Listen to Sarah on the PoliticusUSA Pod on The Daily newsletter podcast here.

Sarah has been credentialed to cover President Barack Obama, then VP Joe Biden, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and exclusively interviewed Speaker Nancy Pelosi multiple times and exclusively covered her first home appearance after the first impeachment of then President Donald Trump.

Sarah is two-time Telly award winning video producer and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Connect with Sarah on Post,  Mastodon @PoliticusSarah@Journa.Host, & Twitter.