Chad Squitieri

2 months ago | lawliberty.org | Chad Squitieri |Mark Pulliam |Rachel Lu |Amy Swearer

Under Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a willingness to enforce the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles. This is welcome news for those who think that aspects of the administrative state run afoul of important constitutional lines separating the federal government’s three coequal branches. But not everyone has found the Roberts Court’s separation-of-powers jurisprudence to be cause for celebration.

Dec 9, 2024 | americancompass.org | Chad Squitieri

This past summer, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled its 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC. Under Chevron, perhaps the most well-known case about administrative law, courts were required to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of federal statutes. Now that Chevron is overruled, courts must independently interpret statutes themselves, rather than systematically favor the statutory interpretations proposed by agencies.

Oct 15, 2024 | yalejreg.com | Chad Squitieri

In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) prohibits courts from deferring under Chevron v. NRDC to agency interpretations of statutes. What, if anything, does that holding mean for the deference courts give agency interpretations of regulations under Auer v. Robbins?  On one reading of Loper Bright, Auer is no longer good law.

Jul 3, 2024 | lawliberty.org | Chad Squitieri |Richard Samuelson |Reuven Brenner |Helen Dale

July 3, 2024 With the overruling of Chevron, courts must interpret statutes independently. The Supreme Court’s 1984 opinion in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.was not supposed to be revolutionary.

May 28, 2024 | yalejreg.com | Chad Squitieri

On two occasions, the majority opinion in CFPB v. Community Financial made clear that it was tasked with answering only a “narrow” question concerning the requirements imposed by the Appropriations Clause. Slip Op. at 1, 5. The Court’s answer to that narrow question was relatively straightforward: the Appropriations Clause requires no more than “a law that authorizes the disbursement of specified funds for identified purposes.”  Id. at 19.