A group of recent rulings by the Supreme Court have led some to speculate that SCOTUS has opened the path to anarchy within the justice system, particularly in those cases that involve environmental regulation. I don’t believe that chaos is imminent—far from it—and will endeavor to make the case that SCOTUS has been reasonable within a Constitutional context.

For simplicity’s sake, we’ll stick to the two most important decisions: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Loper Bright) and Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Corner Post).

Loper Bright did away with the “Chevron Doctrine” that directed the judiciary to defer to public sector experts when confronted with difficult and/or seemingly ambiguous technicalities involving statutes and regulations. Corner Post moved the bar on the six-year statute of limitations that applies when a plaintiff asserts that a particular statute or regulation causes the plaintiff to suffer undue financial (or other) harm. The court held that the six-year window does not open when the statute or regulation is enacted or promulgated, but when the plaintiff first feels the effect of the onerous action.

Read Full Article Here