In the News

However, the Trump administration’s attempt to deregulate was also often thwarted by the courts. All told, the Trump administration lost 57 percent of cases challenging its environmental policies, a much higher rate of loss than previous administrations, according to a database maintained by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

I have noted that according to decades’ worth of studies compiled by Bethany Davis Noll, litigation director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, federal agencies have historically prevailed in about 70 percent of the legal challenges to their regulatory actions. But Noll’s study reviewing 278 Trump-era agency actions (48 involving immigration) found that federal agencies prevailed only 23 percent of the time. As to appeals, Noll reported that “[o]f the appeals that the government took, agencies lost on appeal 38% of the time, … won reversal … in 12%, ... [and] another 48% … were pending.”

Altogether, [the Supreme Court's] actions to transfer authority from agencies to the judiciary could curtail a wide range of financial, environmental, workplace and consumer protections. “It’s just part of a continuing trend with the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular, exercising more and more power … at the expense, potentially, of the other branches,” said Don Goodson, deputy director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. 

“Congress doesn’t have the time or expertise to fill in the details for thousands of regulations, and it’s hard to anticipate the twists and turns of the future and exactly what [lawmakers] need to spell out specifically,” says Dena Adler, a senior attorney at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. Agencies use their expertise to turn broad-brush statutes into nitty-gritty policies, and the courts intervene only in extreme circumstances.

As we all await the next administrative law earthquake from the Supreme Court, it may be worth taking stock of just how much the ground has already shifted. In our new article, Major Rules in the Courts: An Empirical Study of Challenges to Federal Agencies’ Major Rules, we provide this analysis. Using a novel dataset of all 1,870 major rules (as defined by the Congressional Review Act) issued from 1996 through the end of the Trump Administration, we analyze whether a major rule issued today is as likely to be challenged and withstand the challenge as a rule issued over 20 years ago. In addition to answering those overarching questions, we break down win rates by presidential administration and agency, as well as by party of the deciding judges’ appointing President. Along the way, we examine trends in forum shopping and the use of Chevron deference, among other variables.

Jason Schwartz, legal director at New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity, told Law360 that agency officials carefully pay attention to the calendar when they plan rulemaking in the early days of a presidential administration. Schwartz served as a senior adviser at OIRA under Biden. "For a while now, agencies will have been thinking about their priorities and been coordinating with OIRA and with the policy councils in the White House to really sequence things so that the highest-priority rules made it to the finish line with time to spare," he said. Agencies also consider litigation targeting rules they issue, Schwartz said.

In a recent post for the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice and Comment blog, the regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, Max Sarinsky, argued that administrative agencies should aim to preemptively rebut major questions doctrine challenges by citing previous agency actions. Sarinsky identified new Environmental Protection Agency vehicle pollution standards as an example.

In a forthcoming article in the Georgetown Environmental Law Review, Richard L. Revesz, the AnBryce Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Max Sarinsky, regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, propose that federal agencies preemptively address challenges under the major questions doctrine by drawing comparisons to prior agency actions.

Earlier this week, Max Sarinsky published an excellent piece about how agencies could get ahead of major questions doctrine (MQD) challenges to new rules... In the same spirit as Sarinsky’s blog post, we articulate another way to rebut MQD challenges to new agency actions. 

A Feb. 28 webinar -- hosted by the Center for Progressive Reform, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, and Institute for Policy Integrity -- will discuss the White House’s new cost-benefit review guidance known as Circular A-4, how it can be used in comments and final rules, as well as how EPA’s updated social cost of carbon (SCC) valuations can affect pending regulations.