Location:
The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), through July and August of 2024, hosted a public forum, Recent Administrative Law Developments in the Supreme Court: What’s Next for Agencies? Across four virtual panels, ACUS members and researchers discussed the significance of Supreme Court decisions from the 2024 term for federal agencies. Information on and recordings of the panels are below.
Panel 1: Loper Bright v. Raimondo
Tuesday, July 30 (12:00 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. ET)
The first panel will address Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court “overruled” Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council and held that the Administrative Procedure Act “incorporates the traditional understanding of the judicial function, under which courts must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions.”
Participants:
- Jack Beermann, Boston University School of Law
- Abbe Gluck, Yale Law School and Yale Medical School
- Elbert Lin, Hunton Andrew Kurth LLP
- Victoria Nourse, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator:
- Cary Coglianese, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
Panel 2: SEC v. Jarkesy
Tuesday, July 30 (1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. ET)
The second panel will address Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. In Jarkesy, the Supreme Court held that “the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties against him for securities fraud.”
Participants:
- Jennifer Dickey, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
- Jeffrey Lubbers, American University Washington College of Law
- Christopher Walker, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator:
- Matthew Wiener, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
Panel 3: Corner Post v. Federal Reserve
Thursday, August 1 (12:00 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. ET)
The third panel will address Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In Corner Post, the Court held the statute of limitations for challenging an agency rule under the Administrative Procedure Act does not begin to run until a plaintiff is “injured” by the rule.
Participants:
- Aditya Bamzai, University of Virginia School of Law
- John Duffy, University of Virginia School of Law
- Jonathan Siegel, The George Washington University Law School
- Allison Zieve, Public Citizen
Moderator:
- Elizabeth Papez, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Panel 4: Ohio v. EPA
Tuesday, August 13 (1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. ET)
The fourth panel will address Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency. In this decision, the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ application to stay an EPA rule pending appeal based on a finding that EPA “offered no reasoned response” to certain public comments made during the notice-and-comment period.
Participants:
- Nicholas Bagley, University of Michigan Law School
- Allyson Ho, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
- Stephanie Tatham, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Moderator:
- Kate Shaw, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School