The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Lots of Administrative Law On Tap for Next Supreme Court Term
The Court will consdier whether to invalidate the CFPB's funding, narrow standing, and overturn Chevron, among other things.
The Supreme Court has scarcely filled its docket for the 2023-24 term, but it is already shaping up to a major term for administrative law.
Among the cases accepted for next term with potentially significant implications for administrative law are the following:
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America - Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the CFPB violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding. (I wrote about the cert petition here.)
- Acheson Hotels v. Laufer - Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act "tester" has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation's failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation. (Josh B. wrote about the cert grant here.)
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo - Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. (I wrote about the cert grant here.)
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy - Three questions: (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection. (I wrote about the Jarkesy decision here.)
That's quite a bit of administrative law for a single year, and there will be more to come. The Court has not even granted certiorari on two-dozen cases yet. Additional cases concerning standing, the Biden Administration's environmental regulations, vaping regulation, and the FDA's treatment of mifepristone could still end up before the justices.
Note to Administrative Law professors: Be prepared to revise your syllabi!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Note to mainstream professors: Don't discard your current materials; like clothes, they seem destined to be back in style down the road (and likely relatively soon).
"Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act "tester" has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation's failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website"
I think no, but it does seem there is precedent! Though I doubt the validity of it here.
I do wonder, suppose the plantiff wasn't intending to visit this place, but she wanted to, idk write a report about accessibility requirements and compliance in general and the businesses lack of information actively hinders her to write the report.
Is that enough to give standing?
Like, looking into this people like this are awful, take legitimacy away from actual ADA claims, basically extort small businesses, organizational standing is a stupid concept, and of course she didnt need the information for anything other than to file a lawsuit, etc ... but I wonder about turning this into a general rule.
Moreover, this seems to highlight the wisdom of sourcing standing in Article II rather than Article III, it seems what the plaintiff is doing here is quintessentially the job of the executive, and subject to that discretion.
What about the fraudulent claims act?
There is no such thing. What are you talking about?
OK, False Claims Act -- I was close. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act
And as to testers, what's done in Massachusetts -- not sure if under state law or federal -- is have white and minority applicants go apply for housing they have no intention of living in. The problem I have is that I know some of the testers -- the minority testers are a-holes and (I have no doubt) act like that, while the White testers are polite and in clean clothes. Whom would the truly objective landlord rent to???
The fake black applicant does not sue in his own name. The Attorney General's office threatens to sue unless the landlord pays up and promises to do better.
:Acheson Hotels v. Laufer" - independent of the facts, this
is where we were on the great land grab?
I did not write the above…
Damned if I know where it came from....
It would be wonderful if "testers" such as Laufer were found to lack standing.
What about hypothetical testers who are lying, cheating bigots?
Spoiler: If she's bigoted for Jesus, Republicans will forgive her.
You can't be bigoted for Jesus. And you will never understand why if you can't fathom his message of love and tolerance.
You are all for mowing down Mexican migrants.
Your Jesus and mine are not the same person.
I had to do the most insane things when I was a statistical analyst at a bank working under CFPB utter foolishness. I hope CFPB is disbanded. It actually added to consumer woes. For example banks took on minority loans that were bad so that they could not be accused of racism, figuring the writeoff of the bad loan would be far less than any punitive CFPB damages. And under the Community Reinvestment Act DROVE OUT MINORITY LENDERS.