The conservative Supreme Court majority showed with its 6-3 decision in The Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that it is doing its best to help destroy the federal government.
The ruling “allows plaintiffs to challenge agency actions long after they are finalized.” All three Libertarians dissented.
The first Supreme Court decision was the Corner Post case. In a 6-3 vote, the majority allowed plaintiffs to challenge agency actions long after they were 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 said in her dissent: “At the end of an important term, one thing is clear: With regard to the Court’s stake in this case and Loper Bright’s A tsunami of lawsuits from agencies authorized by Loper Bright,
could disrupt federal government operations.
What’s more, for now, this outcome is not at all what Congress wanted when it enacted legislation to fund federal agencies and give them the authority to set the ground rules for individuals and entities participating in our economy and society. that power. The statute of limitations in §2401(a) is designed to allow all newcomers to forever mount new attacks on established statutes, which is completely unthinkable. However, this is the view held by most people today.
Jackson did propose a solution, but it would mean that Congress would have to do everything in its power to protect the U.S. government, and that wouldn’t happen with a Republican majority.
“But Congress still has an opportunity to address this absurdity and prevent the coming chaos. It can choose to correct the Court’s error by clarifying that the regulations it enacts are intended to facilitate the operations of agencies, not hinder them. In particular, Congress can amend §2401(a), or create specific review provisions for APA claims to clarify what any such rule must mean when operating as a statute of limitations period in this context: a regulated entity has six years from the time the agency files an action seeking The date of change or invalidation; after that date, the Face Challenge must end.
Coupled with Chevron’s capsize, it’s a ‘big deal,’ Neal Katyal Shares Neal Katyal:
“While we await the Trump immunity case, the court just made a decision that makes it easier to sue agencies, and this decision, coupled with Chevron’s overturn, is significant.” Judge Kotanji Ketanji Brown Jackson said today: “At the end of an important term, one thing is clear: a tsunami of litigation against the court’s holders in this case and against the institutions Loper Bright mandated There is the potential to undermine the functioning of these institutions.
Jackson noted that this allowed wealthy litigants (you know, like the ones who secretly funded Judge Clarence Thomas’ lifestyle) to game the system.
“Today’s ruling is not only without merit. It is also profoundly important. Despite Congress’s clear policy decision to terminate such litigation within six years of the agency’s final action, the Court in one fell swoop effectively eliminated any statute of limitations period for APA litigation. Court Decision start the timer
Whenever a new regulated entity is created, its purpose should be followed. This means that, starting today, administrative agencies can permanently sue for every final decision they make.
Although appeals courts have previously applied §2401(a) to find a series of untimely and belated APA challenges, the majority’s ruling makes it equitable to bring legal challenges to decades-old agency decisions.
Three “progressives” (not sure these judges are progressives, they are pro-human rights, but maybe things have moved too far to the right and we now call anyone who doesn’t want to stifle the great promise and experiment of America’s country a “progressive” ”), three non-activists on the court, dissented.
“The Corner Post’s first point is when a challenge to an agency’s action arises. Court 6-3, Barrett dissenting with 3 progressives, upholding conviction when plaintiff was injured. Dissenters said , which effectively eliminates any blackout period.
This ruling is intended to limit the power of the government and even render it dysfunctional through litigation, thereby effectively weakening the government’s power. It’s also about empowering “business”—big business, that is, the ability to operate without rules.
“…the agenda/legacies of six Republican appointees to the Supreme Court on Friday hindered the executive agency’s ability to enforce rules against powerful business interests. Today’s Cape Post adds the 3rd such ruling in 3 decision days ,” wrote Charlie Savage in a gift link to the New York Times article.
This is crazy.
“This is crazy. It means agency rules are never addressed, even if they have been in effect for a long time and people/companies rely on them to act. Newly established entities “affected” by the rule can challenge it. Why do I have a feeling that some new “entity” is popping up, created exactly for this purpose? Asha Langappa added.
What this really means is that the court is a threat to the U.S. government. This is not hyperbole, but rather than worrying about President Biden’s age, we should be urging him to fix this court in his next term.
It also means people need to vote all the way for pro-freedom, people-first candidates so that Congress can fix this problem.
This is absolutely abnormal, unworkable and ridiculous. This goes beyond pandering to big business; it undermines the view of our government that big business will steal, poison, and even kill people for profit whenever they are allowed to do so. The government should help protect people from the greed of big money. This is the fundamental purpose of regulations.
Listen to Sarah on the PoliticusUSA Pod of the Daily Newsletter Podcast here.
Sarah has been granted coverage of President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and has had multiple exclusive interviews and exclusive reporting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi She made her first home appearance since then-President Donald Trump’s first impeachment.
Sarah is a two-time Telly Award-winning filmmaker and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Contact Sarah via Post, Mastodon @PoliticusSarah@Journa.Host, & Twitter.
