Inter-Loper: Loper Bright and Judicial Intrusion on Agency Prerogatives

by Nathan Cortez

If you wanted quick medical advice, you’d ask your friend with an MD or BSN. Not a JD. Likewise, if you wanted to know how to regulate nitrogen oxide under the Clean Air Act, you’d probably trust the scientists at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the judges on a court that referred to the gas as nitrous oxide (laughing gas). But under the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a 6-3 conservative majority ruled that courts get the final say on such matters.

Loper Bright was a blockbuster decision, though not unexpected. Here, I’ll discuss what it might mean for health agencies like the EPA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Department of Health Human Services (HHS).

Read More

“Hubris Squared”: What SCOTUS Decision Gutting Deference to Public Agencies Means for Health Care Protections

This post originally appeared on Health Care in Motion, published by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation.

The last days of the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) term brought some blockbuster decisions with far reaching implications for federal agencies charged with regulating health care. In an expected but still monumental move, SCOTUS issued a decision in Loper Bright vs. Raimondo overruling decades of precedent under which courts gave deference to agency interpretation of federal statutes the agency was charged with enforcing.

Read More