Last year’s US Supreme Court term marked a significant juncture in administrative law—the legal framework that governs the operation and oversight of US government agencies. As the new term kicks off on October 7, the court is once again poised to address whether to continue its recalibration of the “administrative state.”
A defining trait of the Roberts Court has been a penchant for gradualism, often tempering far-reaching decisions with measured, incremental steps. This term, the court’s trajectory will reveal not if, but how and at what pace, it will continue to refine agency powers. Two pivotal cases set the stage early on.
First up is Garland v. VanDerStok, which questions whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has the authority to regulate “ghost guns”—parts that can be assembled into functional firearms—under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Challengers assert that the law’s text pertains only to completed firearms or the essential components like frames or receivers, whereas the government contends that a broad reading is necessary to adapt to evolving issues.
This case takes on added gravity after last term’s notable termination of Chevron deference, the judicial practice of deferring to agency interpretations of statutes. Now, the court will determine if Congress explicitly granted the ATF such regulatory powers.
Another anticipated case, FDA v. Wages & White Lion Investments, revolves around how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implements its regulatory authority. The challengers argue the FDA altered its criteria for e-cigarette application denials, an approach labeled as a “surprise switcheroo” by the Fifth Circuit. Here, the court will probe the balance between respecting agency discretion and ensuring agency actions are not arbitrary.
Beyond these two cases, the Supreme Court’s docket for the term remains partially filled, with numerous petitions still pending. Notably, two cases involving Consumers’ Research challenge long-standing precedents on agency independence and the scope of Congress’s legislative delegation to unelected officials.
The court’s decisions this term will shape the future of administrative law, potentially tightening constitutional constraints on federal agencies and shifting more power back to legislative and executive branches. Whether the term will be another high-profile battleground or a quieter continuation of the court’s recalibration remains to be seen, but the direction is unmistakable: a pivot from expansive agency discretion toward more stringent judicial oversight.
For more insights, visit the original article on Bloomberg Law.