deals a serious blow to the administrative state, part of a yearslong project by the financial sector and conservatives to weaken federal power.federal agencies like the EPA and Labor Department that rely on administrative law judges, which report to federal agencies and areJarkesy could weaken the ability of a range of federal agencies who use these judges — from the EPA to OSHA — to enforce laws in the public interest.
But the new ruling could mean that even run-of-the-mill actions go to court. For example, a case where a defendant agrees to a penalty and settles.and so if the cost of settlement goes up, it means they're going to have fewer resources to bring enforcement actions," says Tierney, who is now an assistant professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.Between the lines:
The 6-3 decision fell along ideological lines, with chief justice John Roberts writing for the majority. "A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator," Roberts writes.In a blistering dissent, calling the decision a "massive sea change," Justice Sonia Sotomayor argues that the court's ruling violates well established precedent — that Congress had long given federal agencies the right to adjudicate certain kinds of cases.
"The majority pulls a rug out from under Congress without even acknowledging that its decision upends over two centuries of settled Government practice."Limiting agency's ability to enforce the laws, and throwing it to the courts amounts to a "power grab" by the court's majority, she writes.The ramifications of the decision will play out in the courts for years as agency's try and figure out the new world it established.