pramila jayapal
Dems Aim to Reverse 'Power-Hungry' Supreme Court Ruling Against Regulators
"If Congress does not act, long-standing regulations that have protected consumers, workers, our environment, and public health and safety for years, even decades, could be newly challenged by corporations," said one advocate.
Recognizing the threat posed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down by the right-wing justices earlier this month, a pair of U.S. House Democrats on Thursday introduced the Corner Post Reversal Act.
Proposed by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Subcommittee on Administrative Law, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Ranking Member Lou Correa (D-Calif.), the bill would reverse the 6-3 decision in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The high court's conservative supermajority decided that the Administrative Procedures Act's (APA) statute of limitations period does not begin until a plaintiff is adversely affected by a regulation—making it much easier for corporations to sue government agencies.
"The Corner Post decision was an erroneous and power-hungry move by the MAGA majority on the court, that was intentionally dismissive of the will of Congress expressed in the Administrative Procedure Act," Nadler said in a statement. "The court has opened the floodgates to allow big corporations and private interests to object and challenge commonsense rules that protect our air, water, land, environment, food, medicines, labor, and children."
Correa similarly called out the high court for taking aim at the APA's statute of limitations, which "opened the door to unlimited challenges that may overburden our judicial system while harming Americans and small businesses."
"This piece of legislation is an important and essential step in reestablishing the certainty that comes from the finality that the six-year limitation provided," he added.
Specifically, as the congressmen's offices detailed, their bill:
- Reestablishes the statute of limitations found within Section 702 of the APA;
- Clarifies congressional intent that agency rules must be challenged within six years after being finalized;
- Codifies that the right to seek judicial review accrues under the APA when the agency finalizes the rule;
- Protects well-developed and scientifically based agency actions from attacks by private interests, thereby assuring protections for consumers, the workforce, and our environment; and
- Assures that our courts are not flooded or strained by claims by actions commenced after the six years following the agency action.
"This bill, in conjunction with the Stop Corporate Capture Act," said Nadler, "addresses the need to protect longstanding and long-working rules established by administrative agencies and protect our federal system from arbitrary and frivolous attacks that would have been welcomed under the Corner Post holding."
The Stop Corporate Capture Act was introduced last year by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She is also backing the bill introduced Thursday alongside Reps. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), and Nikema Williams (D-Ga.).
"Public agencies exist to create rules and implement laws that protect the American people and their families from unsafe working conditions, dangerous food and drug products, and polluted water and air," said Jayapal. "It is imperative that our public agencies are able to enact measures to keep all Americans safe and healthy without being subject to constant lawsuits from bad actors."
The legislation—which is unlikely to get through the Republican-controlled House—is also supported by the Small Business Majority along with the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance that includes the Center for American Progress, Earthjustice, and Public Citizen.
Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, stressed in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's Corner Post decision makes Americans less safe" and argued the new bill "would prevent the disruptive impact" of the recent ruling.
"If Congress does not act," she added, "long-standing regulations that have protected consumers, workers, our environment, and public health and safety for years, even decades, could be newly challenged by corporations that want to boost their profits at the public's expense."
Progressive Dems Call for Codifying Chevron After 'Dangerous' Supreme Court Ruling
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Sen. Ed Markey said.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine—which instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws passed by Congress as they regulate everything from food safety to labor rights to climate pollution—progressive lawmakers vowed to take action to protect the power of these agencies to shield the public from toxic chemicals and unscrupulous employers.
Legislators expressed concerns about the impacts of the court's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which ended a 40-year precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984.
"Now, with this ill-advised decision, judges must no longer defer to the decisions about Americans' health, safety, and welfare made by agencies with technical and scientific expertise in their fields," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "MAGA extremist Republicans and their big business cronies are rejoicing as they look forward to creating a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every American in this country."
"This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Markey said.
Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the ruling "dangerous" and urged Congress to "immediately pass" the Stop Corporate Capture Act, which she introduced in March 2023.
In a statement Friday, Jayapal said the act was "the only bill that codifies Chevron deference, strengthens the federal-agency rulemaking process, and ensures that rulemaking is guided by the public interest—not what's good for wealthy corporations."
The act would codify Chevron by providing "statutory authority for the judicial principle that requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable or permissible interpretation of a federal law when the law is silent or ambiguous."
In addition, it would:
- Require anyone submitting a study as part of a comment period on a regulation to disclose who funded it;
- Only allow federal agencies to take part in the negotiated rulemaking process;
- Create an Office of the Public Advocate to increase public participation in the process of crafting regulations;
- Make public companies that knowingly lie in the comment period on a proposed regulation liable for a fine of at least $250,000 for a first offense and at least $1 million for a second; and
- Empower agencies to reissue rules that were rescinded under the Congressional Review Act.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 organizations mobilizing for stronger public protections, also called on Congress to pass the Stop Corporate Capture Act.
"The bill is a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the regulatory system to better protect the public," the coalition wrote in response to Friday's ruling. "It would ensure greater public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity, and restore our government's ability to deliver results for workers, consumers, public health, and our environment."
Jayapal also called on Congress to "enact sweeping oversight measures to rein in corruption and billionaire influence at the Supreme Court, whose far-right extremist majority routinely flouts basic ethics, throws out precedent, and legislates from the bench to benefit the wealthiest and most powerful."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) similarly recommended congressional action to address court corruption. In a statement, she called the decision "a power grab for the corrupt Supreme Court who continues to do the bidding of greedy corporations."
"The MAGA Court just overruled 40 years of precedent that empowered federal agencies to hold powerful corporations accountable, protect our workplaces and public health, and ensure that we have clean water and air," Tlaib continued. "This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
In the meantime, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said that the ruling did not strip regulatory bodies of their authority to pass new rules to protect the public and the environment.
"This decision is a gift to big corporations, making it easier for them to challenge rules to ensure clean air and water, safe workplace and products, and fair commercial and financial practices," said Public Citizen president and coalition co-chair Robert Weissman. "But the decision is no excuse for regulators to stop doing their jobs. They must continue to follow the law and uphold their missions to protect consumers, workers, and our environment."
New Funding Bill Shows House Republicans 'Want Monopolists to Win'
"House Democrats must take a firm stand against this problematic proposal and offer an amendment in markup to give the Antitrust Division the resources necessary to enforce the law," said one campaigner.
Anti-monopoly campaigners on Tuesday blasted House Republicans over a bill that would dramatically reduce funding for the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and impose caps on how much the crucial agency gets from merger filing fees.
The House Appropriations Committee
proposal contains sweeping spending cuts, including a $40 million reduction in the DOJ Antitrust Division's budget. The $192.7 million allocated for the division is $95 million less than requested by U.S. President Joe Biden.
"House Republicans are not fully funding the Antitrust Division—this is a pro-Ticketmaster, pro-Google, pro-Apple, and pro-UnitedHealth agenda," Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), said in a statement.
"This is a pro-Ticketmaster, pro-Google, pro-Apple, and pro-UnitedHealth agenda."
In addition to the budget cut, the bill contains one rider that would cap the amount of fees the Antitrust Division gets from the bipartisan Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act and another that would effectively ban the agency from hiring more staff.
The proposed bill "would openly and deliberately disregard the will of Congress by limiting the DOJ's access to these funds," AELP said, arguing that House Republicans "want monopolists to win."
"With cases against some of the biggest monopolies in the economy already in progress or looming, the additional funds would allow the division to hire more attorneys and staff to effectively enforce the law," the group added.
According to Harper:
Despite having even fewer attorneys than it did in the 1970s, [Assistant Attorney General] Jonathan Kanter's Antitrust Division is securing unprecedented wins to turn the tide on market concentration across the economy. Appropriators should be bolstering the Antitrust Division in this moment, not kneecapping it by limiting hiring and reducing funds Congress authorized through the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act.
"House Democrats must take a firm stand against this problematic proposal and offer an amendment in markup to give the Antitrust Division the resources necessary to enforce the law," Harper added.
The GOP proposal comes amid a flurry of antitrust action by the Biden administration, whose DOJ has investigated UnitedHealth Group, the world's largest health insurance company, and sued Apple, Google, and Ticketmaster. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission under Chair Lina Khan has taken on Amazon and other corporations.
"The DOJ Antitrust Division has won victories in court against employers that sought to suppress workers' pay and blocked harmful mergers in the airline industry," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said while addressing U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland during a hearing earlier this month.
"You're working to lower food prices by targeting anti-competitive practices and mergers in the grocery industry and the meat processing industry, and the Antitrust Division successfully ended a price fixing scheme in DVD and Blu-ray sales and prevented video game companies from suppressing wages in e-sports," she continued.
"These are incredible accomplishments, and you're also working to promote competition in the live music industry," Jayapal added, referring to the lawsuit
filed last month by the DOJ and 30 state attorneys general against Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary.