At the end of its most recent term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several opinions that shook the foundation of modern administrative law. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024) (Loper), the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (Chevron), that instructed judges to defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous provisions of statutes they administer. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024), the court recognized a defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial in federal court to contest a civil penalty for securities fraud even though Congress authorized the enforcement action to be tried before an administrative tribunal. In Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 144 S.Ct. 2440 (2024), the court held that the six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenging administrative agency regulations does not begin to run when the regulations are published but rather when the plaintiff was injured by final agency action.

So, what accounts for this sea change? In combination, these decisions have curtailed the authority of administrative agencies, increased the role of the judiciary, and made agency regulations easier to challenge. It appears that a majority of the court believes that agency regulations have gone too far, and that agencies require further control by the court. Regulations issued by environmental and resource management agencies emerge most clearly in the court's bullseye.