A Take on Recent Supreme Court Decisions: Federalism and the Administrative State

Many of you have reached out, eager to understand the recent pronouncements from the highest court in the land.  When I say many of you, I mean a staggering number of over 100 texts and emails. They have been piling up faster than a liberal law professor’s footnotes. So, let’s dissect these rulings with the precision demanded by law and explore their ramifications for the American people.

First, we address the case concerning former President Trump. The Court has offered much-needed clarity on the concept of presidential immunity. While the decision acknowledges a measure of protection for core executive actions, it emphatically rejects the notion of an impenetrable shield. Like all citizens, former presidents are answerable for their deeds – the cornerstone of our system of checks and balances. However, the Court leaves the precise boundaries of this immunity to be determined by lower courts on a case-by-case basis; however, it makes a clear distinction between immunity related to their official duties and actions that fall clearly outside the official duties. The case will now be returned to the lower courts. I will have more thoughts on this fluid matter for you later.

Now, we turn to a matter of significant importance for the administrative state—the Chevron doctrine. For decades, this doctrine compelled courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute as long as the interpretation was deemed reasonable. In the Court’s view, this deference has led to an imbalance of power, with unelected, legally ignorant bureaucrats effectively legislating through regulation.

The Court’s recent decision emphatically dismantles Chevron. Henceforth, judges will assume their rightful role as the ultimate interpreters of the law. This ensures a more faithful approach to statutory text and promotes a more accountable regulatory state.

Opponents of this decision raise the specter of weakened environmental protections and consumer safeguards. Such fears are unfounded. Courts remain fully capable of upholding legitimate regulations that comport with the law. The critical difference is that these regulations will be subject to a more rigorous judicial review, ensuring they are genuinely grounded in statutory authority.

In essence, these decisions represent a victory for the principles of federalism and the separation of powers. They return the power to interpret the law to its rightful place – the judiciary – and ensure that the vast regulatory apparatus functions within the bounds set by Congress. This is cause for celebration for all who cherish a government that operates according to the rule of law, not the whims of unelected ego and agenda-driven bureaucrats.

This article is the author's opinion and does not purport to offer legal advice.

Dan Nardo, Partner | Nardo & Associates | dnardo@nardoassociates.com