While all eyes are on Trump, Supreme Court conservatives prepare to change the rules

(CNN) — This week’s controversial U.S. The Supreme Court’s oral arguments offered a reminder that while people are focused on Donald Trump’s election cases, the court’s actions this spring will have similar consequences for a host of rules established in Washington that govern American life.

Conservatives on the Supreme Court are stepping up their efforts to reform the way the federal government protects Americans, whether from air pollution or unfair financial practices.

Although the decisions will only be published later this year, the frustration of the liberal justices was evident this week, when their harsh comments from the court pointed to a pattern of shrinking right-wing majorities on the environment, public health and consumers.

In recent years, Supreme Court justices have struck down rules on power plant emissions, student loan forgiveness and Covid-19 precautions. They are hearing a series of new cases in the current session that seem destined to reinforce current trends that break with decades of precedent.

Justice Elena Kagan, who has warned of public distrust in outside speeches when legislative rulings change simply because of new appointments, weighed in on the court on Tuesday.

Kagan presented a scenario involving a trade association that sued the regulation, lost, and then “10 years later…looks around and thinks, you know, the environment is more hospitable. The judges have changed. Let’s try again.”

Court proceedings in cases beyond Trump’s election controversies will highlight another effect of the former president: a conservative ruling class made possible only by three of his appointees: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. (Since Barrett’s confirmation in 2020, conservatives have held a 6-3 margin.)

The reshuffled courts and new cases challenging federal authority — on consumer fraud, Securities and Exchange Commission disputes and environmental policy — have emboldened conservative advocates and wealthy business interests who say the administration has taken power over American business.

Liberals and public interest advocates respond that federal agencies provide critical expertise and resources to protect the public good. One dispute, to be heard March 26, centers on the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to declare the abortion pill, mifepristone, safe and effective for use nationwide.

Another important case, heard in January, upheld the 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which has given US agencies great latitude to interpret congressional laws and implement policies. The case has shaped a series of court rulings on agency policies outside of the environmental arena, and has become one of the most cited rulings in Supreme Court history.

Addressing Chevron’s milestone this week, Kagan defended the Federal Reserve’s deadline to file a lawsuit against a Justice Department lawyer, saying: “There’s obviously another big challenge in how the courts review the Fed’s actions.” The agency before this court was… reversed, how does that affect what you’re talking about here?”

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Snyder responded that a decision for a company suing the Federal Reserve rule “could amplify the effect of any other decision that changes the way this court addresses administrative law issues…those changes would apply retroactively to each regulation.” That the agency has adopted for the last, I don’t know, 75 years or something.”

When that challenge to Chevron’s ruling was heard in court last month, Gorsuch suggested that it unfairly tilted the balance toward the agency’s authority. “The government always wins,” he said. “Chevron is exploited in favor of the government against the individual.”

In a new case heard Tuesday, brought by truck stop owners in North Dakota, Gorsuch sounded sympathetic. Corner Post is protesting a Federal Reserve rule adopted in 2011 that charges debit card fees merchants earn with each transaction.

It maintains that the limit violates the federal ban on “arbitrary and capricious” actions. The Federal Reserve, defending the rule, said any lawsuit against it must be filed within the six-year statute of limitations. Corner Post, which began operating in 2018, argues that the clock should start ticking when a regulation affects a company.

The feds prevailed in the lower courts, but Supreme Court justices agreed to hear the appeal, and conservatives seemed receptive to The Corner Post’s argument that the clock starts ticking when a particular plaintiff suffers a legal loss.

“The general rule,” Gorsuch said at one point, “is that the plaintiff’s injury is accrual time.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts echoed the same sentiment, telling Attorney General Snyder: “There’s a person or an entity that’s harmed by something the government is doing, and you say, well, that’s a shame.” , nothing can be done about it. ” Because others have had six years to do something about it…” The chief justice echoed the Corner Post, arguing that “everyone is entitled to their day in court.”

The liberal judges clearly had a different opinion.

“I’m concerned that if you win, every agency policy that exists today will face some kind of legal challenge like this,” Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told The Corner Post’s attorney Brian Weir. “Why wouldn’t this be extraordinarily unstable? I mean, we’ve set rules that govern all kinds of industries, the healthcare industry, the financial industry, and people have accepted them. There are experts who understand how the law works and so do companies. If I understand you correctly, every new company in the industry could suddenly bring a legal challenge that could pose a threat… invalidating the entire basis of the industry.”

Veer dismissed “whateveropen the door either A parade of horrors Because… the day the regulation is issued most parties are hurt.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency regulations are under fire

The liberal criticism was more pronounced in Wednesday’s case, stemming from a lawsuit against a Biden administration policy that imposed stricter emissions limits on power plants and other industries in so-called states. Upwind or windward (where pollution is emitted). Known as the “good neighbor” rule, the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program aims to reduce smog and air pollution that crosses state lines and threatens public health.

A lower US appeals court, the Washington DC Circuit, which specializes in these types of administrative law disputes, has allowed early enforcement of bans between states while suits initiated by states and electric companies emerge. (Compliance with emission limits will be mandatory in 2026).

Three Republican-led states and electric industry groups turned to the Supreme Court, seeking immediate relief and calling for a ban on any enforcement. In December, the justices took the rare step of scheduling oral arguments on the simple question of whether the “good neighbor” rule should be suspended. These initial questions are almost always resolved without argument.

Something seemed out of place at this week’s hearings, as most conservatives seemed poised to block a policy that would require power plants in designated states to install technology to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides into the air.

The right-wing justices noted that the EPA plan originally applied to 23 windward states but now covers only 11 states due to court decisions stemming from separate lawsuits against the EPA. Roberts cited the “hundreds of millions of dollars” that were spent.

Malcolm Stewart, the US deputy attorney general, told the court that the EPA anticipated that the states covered would change over time, adding: “EPA has developed requirements for each state so that if they end up being a small or large group They can be efficient. States were finally covered.”

Liberal judges protested, possibly in vain, the court’s handling of the case.

“So we’re here because of your emergency relief motion, and it’s quite extraordinary,” Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told Ohio Deputy Attorney General Mathura Sreedharan, adding that the D.C. Circuit has yet to hear the merits of the motion’s case. “So I’m trying to figure out what the crisis is that warrants the Supreme Court’s intervention at this point.”

“At the speed we’re going, to comply with an illegal federal rule, we’re costing both the states and our industry an enormous amount of money,” Sridharan said.

Jackson later observed: “Certainly, the Supreme Court’s emergency docket is not a viable option for parties who believe they have a valid claim against the government and do not want to follow any rules when challenging it.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that trying to “avoid an important decision that the same court (the D.C. Circuit) is about to make” on the EPA plan was a “reversal of the general rules.”

Kagan focused on multiple preliminary issues that lower court judges would normally have weighed before a case reached the Supreme Court.

While throwing questions at industry representative Katherine Stetson, Kagan added: “I don’t want to push you too hard with this because it’s not your fault to be presented in this strange situation.”

The implication was that any “blame” rested with conservative colleagues. And if oral arguments are any guide, judges who previously limited the EPA’s ability to enforce air and water protections will also suspend the “good neighbor” policy.