In a series of notable decisions, the Supreme Court has made significant changes to American administrative law, with far-reaching implications for government regulations. The court's rulings have bolstered the role of corporations, giving them more opportunities to challenge and roll back regulations they deem unfavorable. These decisions impact various areas such as pollution control, workplace safety, and Medicare administration, but the winners are unlikely to be the average American citizens. Instead, it will be companies and private interests who can strategically navigate the court system.

One landmark case among the three is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the famed 1984 Chevron decision. Previously, courts deferred to agencies when it came to interpreting the statutes they administer. However, this recent ruling shifts the power to the courts themselves, allowing them to decide crucial legal questions related to implementing government programs. The Supreme Court has made it clear that even technical matters will no longer receive agency deference, emphasizing the courts' final say in legal interpretation.

The other two cases decided on Thursday may prove even more disruptive. The case of SEC v. Jarkesy declared it unconstitutional for agencies to impose financial penalties directly on lawbreakers, resembling court penalties. Instead, agencies must seek court approval, potentially leading to delays and complications. Similarly, in Ohio v. EPA, the Court halted a new environmental rule aimed at preventing upwind states from polluting the air of downwind states. The Court argued that the agency's technical explanation failed to address the concerns raised by opposing states and industry groups.

It is evident that these cases elevate judicial power while limiting agency authority. Agencies will no longer receive deference on legal matters, cannot directly address wrongdoers, and face scrutiny over technical explanations deemed inadequate by the Court. Although the Supreme Court claims its rulings will protect individual rights and prevent agency overstepping, scholarly research suggests that the consequences may favor well-funded repeat players, primarily powerful corporations.

Multiple studies have shown a disparity in the public and industry involvement in the rulemaking process. Business interests tend to submit significantly more comments that are of higher quality and more likely to provoke changes compared to public interest groups. This discrepancy, coupled with the lack of limitations on comment length or volume, allows industries to strategically flood agencies with comments, potentially leading to unwarranted judicial examinations.

While the Supreme Court's decisions may have occasional benefits for individuals, environmentalists, and unions, the overall trend suggests that strict judicial oversight of agency actions favors well-organized and financially capable repeat players. These decisions fit within the broader conservative agenda of the court, aligned with business interests and concerns about government overreach. Administrative law has become an effective avenue to advance this agenda, with the court emphasizing power dynamics over constitutional principles and individual rights.

Overall, these recent Supreme Court rulings have shifted the balance of power in administrative law towards corporations, allowing them greater influence in regulatory matters. The consequences will have a significant impact on the implementation of government programs, with potential repercussions for the environment, worker safety, and public health.