In a recent case, Justice Elena Kagan’s concurrence has been perceived as a signal that some members of the Supreme Court may have developed weariness towards frequent attacks on administrative agencies. The case under consideration was Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, and findings emphasized on the original interpretation of the Constitution’s appropriations clause.
As noted by Justice Clarence Thomas in the 7-2 opinion, the CFPB’s indirect funding scheme aligns with this original interpretation, suggesting traditional views on Constitutional interpretation still hold considerable weight. Justice Kagan amplified this sentiment in her separate concurrence, highlighting the importance of respecting precedent and “continuing tradition”.
Kagan’s opinion was joined by conservative justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, making this alignment an intriguing discussion point for legal observers who might anticipate a wider shift on the Court’s judicial perspective regarding administrative agencies.
For now, it appears that the stance of at least a fraction of the Court puts some checks on potential dismantling forces directed at the so-called administrative state, creating an environment of moderation and tradition-respecting judicial interpretation.
You can read the full article on this topic originally reported by Bloomberg Law.