President Joe Biden's progressive agenda faces significant hurdles following recent Supreme Court decisions that have empowered federal judges to freeze many of his key regulations.
According to Politico, these rulings have created a new legal landscape that could jeopardize large portions of Biden's policy achievements, even if Vice President Kamala Harris were to succeed him in office.
The impact of these court decisions extends beyond the current administration, potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape for years to come. Federal judges have already used these rulings to block several of Biden's initiatives, including a ban on noncompete agreements for workers and discrimination protections in health care for transgender individuals. This new legal environment poses challenges not only for Biden's unfinished business but also for future administrations' ability to implement their agendas through regulatory action.
The Supreme Court's recent decisions have significantly altered the landscape of federal rulemaking. One of the most consequential rulings was the overturning of the "Chevron doctrine," a 40-year legal precedent that limited judicial intervention in complex agency policymaking. This decision, along with two others, has effectively reshaped the regulatory process in Washington.
In addition to ending the Chevron doctrine, the court also eliminated the statute of limitations for challenging federal regulations and reduced the power of internal judges used by some agencies to enforce their rules. These rulings collectively provide trade groups and corporations with greater opportunities to challenge and potentially overturn federal regulations through legal action.
The impact of these decisions has been swift and far-reaching. Lower courts have already cited these cases in dozens of rulings, according to the progressive legal group Democracy Forward. This new legal framework means that even if President Biden's successor is from the same party, they may face significant challenges in defending and continuing his policy legacy.
Several of President Biden's key policy initiatives are now particularly vulnerable to legal challenges. These include his efforts to provide student debt relief, create workplace accommodations for individuals seeking abortions, and establish discrimination protections for transgender students. The new legal landscape has raised concerns among Democrats about the potential for a de facto conservative veto on presidential actions.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the House Progressive Caucus, expressed her concerns about the situation:
We have an extremist Supreme Court with a very political agenda that is willing to overturn decades of precedent. It has changed the legal strategy.
Several industries have already begun to challenge Biden administration regulations under the new legal framework. Conservative groups and financial institutions have filed lawsuits to dismantle market surveillance systems run by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Additionally, challenges have been brought against the Agriculture Department's conservation practices.
Republicans, for their part, view these changes as a restoration of the proper balance of power between the branches of government. Some argue that the new legal landscape will require Congress to be more specific and focused in its legislative agenda, providing clearer boundaries for agency actions. Philip Wallach, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, commented on the implications of the court's decisions:
It means [Congress] can't just coast, and they can't just shake their fists at the agencies and say, 'Loper Bright, Loper Bright' as if that's going to suddenly change how our government operates. That decision doesn't suddenly mean the administrative state must just be on its heels.
Despite the challenges posed by the new legal environment, much of President Biden's legacy remains secure through the billions of dollars allocated for microchip manufacturing, renewable energy, and infrastructure projects. These investments are less vulnerable to court challenges than regulatory actions.
Some progressives also believe that Biden's presidency has shifted the Democratic Party's center to the left on issues such as labor, climate change, and Wall Street regulation. This ideological shift may have a lasting impact beyond specific policy measures. In response to the court's decisions, Biden has called for a reorganization of the Supreme Court, a position quickly embraced by Vice President Harris. This move signals a potential long-term strategy to address the challenges posed by the current judicial landscape.
In conclusion, recent Supreme Court rulings have created significant obstacles for President Biden's regulatory agenda and potentially for future administrations. These decisions have empowered federal judges to challenge and freeze many key regulations, putting several of Biden's policy achievements at risk. While some aspects of his legacy remain secure through legislative accomplishments, the new legal environment has prompted Democrats to reconsider their strategies for implementing and defending progressive policies. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the impact of these court decisions on presidential legacies and regulatory power will likely remain a central issue in American governance.
