Lots of Administrative Law On Tap for Next Supreme Court Term

Reason.com ^ | 7/1/23 | Jonathan H. Adler

[CFW]

The Supreme Court has scarcely filled its docket for the 2023-24 term, but it is already shaping up to a major term for administrative law.

Among the cases accepted for next term with potentially significant implications for administrative law are the following:

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America—Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the CFPB violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding. (I wrote about the cert petition here.)

Acheson Hotels v. Laufer—Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act "tester" has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation's failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation. (Josh B. wrote about the cert grant here.)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo – Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. (I wrote about the cert grant here.)

[CFW]

These are cases already accepted by the Court for hearing in the 2023 term which begins in October. Decisions will be handed down in May and June of next year.

There are several opportunities for the Court to rein in the over-reach of federal agencies. Especially in "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo".

[FlipWilson]

There are at least five justices who have been salivating to kill Chevron.

[napscoordinator]

Acheson Hotels v. Laufer

This is the one of most interest. Hopefully they go against the hotel. Anybody at anytime may be in a wheelchair especially as we age. That has to be prime reason the hotels lose.

[CFW]

“Acheson Hotels v. Laufer”

---

There are several activists who have made it a business to search for companies or stores that may not be totally ADA compliant and suing them in California courts. They may have never visited that business and have no intention of doing so in the future, but they file suit causing the often-times small mom&pop business to either spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix slight deficiencies or either close their business altogether.

[CFW]

“There are at least five justices who have been salivating to kill Chevron.”

---

And I believe this upcoming term may give them the best opportunity thus far to do so.

Also, for numbers geeks, here is a site that has compiled statistics as to the rulings from this past term.

https://empiricalscotus.com/2023/06/30/another-one-bites-2022/

For instance, “This term the greatest alignments were the combinations of Justices Roberts-Kavanaugh, Sotomayor-Kagan, and Jackson-Sotomayor. Justice Jackson, the newest member of the Court aligned most frequently with Justice Sotomayor and least frequently with Justices Alito and Thomas.”

[napscoordinator]

That may be true. But if they were in compliance in the first place, they wouldn’t be sued. I don’t need these special needs yet, but in 30 years I may. I’d expect to be able to get around like everyone else.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"There are several activists who have made it a business to search for companies or stores that ..... They may have never visited that business and have no intention of doing so in the future."

Classic law-fare. Might be slightly better to look it as regulation-fare.

Margaret Sanger herself was one if the first major pioneers of this tactical use of the courts to abuse the laws for big government purposes.

[cowboyusa]

Overturn Wikkard v. Filbourn and Engel V. Vitel!

[Stravinsky]

Yep, folks have no idea how bad the ADA is