Democratic-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor lamented the Supreme Court decision she accused of “dismantling” the administrative state Thursday, a possible sign of what’s to come as rulings threaten to claw back more agency powers from the executive branch.
Sotomayor, who stands with only two other ideologically similar jurists on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Republican-appointed majority high court, dissented after the majority ruled that the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial bars the Securities and Exchange Commission from conducting their own prosecutions.
“Today’s decision is a massive sea change. Litigants seeking further dismantling of the ‘administrative state’ have reason to rejoice in their win today, but those of us who cherish the rule of law have nothing to celebrate,” Sotomayor wrote in opposition to Chief Justice John Robert’s majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Several legal experts suggested Sotomayor’s dismay over the outcome of Jarkesy v. SEC may signal what the high court is potentially about to decide in a major challenge to administrative powers in two cases that aim to overturn or sharply curtail the 1984 Chevron doctrine, which tells federal courts to defer to executive agencies’ interpretation of statutes and regulations when legislation passed by Congress is otherwise vague or ambiguous. The Supreme Court is slated to decide more cases Friday and Monday.
“Sotomayor’s dismay and honesty, she prefers the court’s precedents downplaying the constitutional limits on the administrative state, suggest that other rulings yet to come this season will also recognize further limits,” said Morgan Marietta, dean of economics, policy, and history at the University of Austin.
The Supreme Court will in the next few days decide Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, which asks specifically whether the justices should “overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 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.”
