The Administrative State Before the Supreme Court

Abstract

This article examines the Supreme Court's increasing skepticism toward administrative agencies and the regulatory state. Metzger argues that the Court's recent decisions reflect a broader anti-administrativist orientation that threatens to dismantle the legal foundations of modern governance. The article traces how doctrines including the non-delegation principle, Chevron deference, and the major questions doctrine have been deployed to constrain agency authority, and argues that this trend is inconsistent with both constitutional text and the practical necessities of modern government.

Key Findings

• The Supreme Court has adopted an increasingly hostile posture toward administrative governance
• The major questions doctrine significantly constrains agency regulatory authority
• Chevron deference has been substantially narrowed and may be overruled
• Anti-administrativism is at odds with the realities of modern governance complexity

Related Statutes

• Administrative Procedure Act
• Clean Air Act
• Dodd-Frank Act

Related Cases

• Chevron v. NRDC (1984)
• West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
• Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024)