Judicial Scrutiny of Government Agency Actions Increases

Gillian E. Metzger, a scholar of administrative and constitutional law, has discussed the impact of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on administrative law doctrine and the operation of federal regulatory agencies. Her analysis reveals a pattern of skepticism and distrust of administrative agencies within the Roberts Court.

Supreme Court Decisions Reshaping Administrative Law

Many recent Supreme Court decisions have overturned longstanding administrative law doctrines. The Court has rejected the practice of judicial deference to agencies’ statutory interpretations, expanded the President’s ability to remove agency heads at will, and developed the major questions doctrine. This doctrine requires a “clear statement” from Congress before an agency can regulate on matters of “vast” economic or political significance.

Expanded Presidential Power

Alongside limiting administrative agency authority, the Court has also expanded presidential power. A recent decision recognized broader presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, reasoning that the President holds the “entirety of the executive power.” These decisions, according to Metzger, reflect the Roberts Court’s “anti-administrativism,” a term she uses to describe opposition to administration and bureaucracy, but not necessarily greater presidential power.

Gillian E. Metzger’s Background

Gillian E. Metzger is the Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of Constitutional Law at Columbia Law School. She previously served as acting assistant attorney general and deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. She currently serves as a senior fellow of the Administrative Conference of the United States and was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Metzger’s scholarship focuses on developments in administrative law under the Roberts Court and presidential control of administrative agencies. She received the American Bar Association’s Annual Scholarship Award in 2016 and is a co-editor of the administrative law casebook Gellhorn & Byse’s Administrative Law: Cases and Comments.

The Roberts Court’s Approach to Administrative Law

The Roberts Court has dramatically reshaped administrative law doctrine, rejecting established precedents such as Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council regarding deference to agency statutory interpretations and Humphrey’s Executor v. United States concerning removal protections. The Court’s skepticism and distrust of administrative agencies, unwillingness to defer to congressional choices, and apparent disregard for disrupting established administrative practice distinguish its approach from previous Courts.

Anti-Administrativism and Recent Term

Metzger defines “anti-administrativism” as a constellation of views that manifest strong distrust and opposition to the federal administrative state. While anti-administrativism has been evident in recent Supreme Court decisions, the Court’s 2024-2025 term saw some instances where the Court rejected formalistic attacks on administrative governance. This included decisions in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, which rejected a nondelegation challenge, and Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, which rejected a challenge alleging unconstitutionally appointed task force members.

Impact on Regulatory Agencies

The Supreme Court’s decisions have affected the operation of regulatory agencies, impacting initiatives such as COVID-19 and student loan programs. The Court’s precedent regarding removal protections has influenced agency composition and, in some cases, denied commissions the quorum needed to take action. Decisions like Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy may curtail the ability of agencies to use administrative adjudication.

Redefinition of Presidential Power

The Roberts Court has espoused an expansive view of presidential power, emphasizing the President’s ability to exert chain-of-command control over executive authority. This is exemplified by decisions granting broad immunity and expanding the President’s removal power.

Upcoming Cases and Future Implications

Several cases on the Court’s upcoming docket are expected to further shape administrative law, including Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which address removal protections for agency officials, and Learning Resources v. Trump, which concerns the major questions doctrine. Metzger’s experience in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel highlighted the importance of internal expertise within the executive branch in ensuring lawful and effective government operation, a factor she notes has been weakened recently.