Loper Bright and the Unlawful Regulation Executive Order

TechFreedom’s Corbin Barthold on the FedSoc Blog explores whether the Trump Administration has “Good Cause” to skip notice and comment in response to the Administration’s executive order directing agencies to repeal “unlawful, unnecessary, and onerous regulations:”

New precedents often raise as many questions as they answer. Take the first case on the executive order’s list: Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), which scrapped Chevron deference. Now judges must apply a law’s best reading, rather than any plausible reading an agency might offer. The administration seems to think that, with Loper Bright on the books, agencies must now repeal, without public input, any rule that does not reflect the one correct interpretation of a statute. But working out that interpretation is precisely what the notice-and-comment process is for. And in any event, Loper Bright said that it did “not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework.” If the Court exercised such restraint, by what authority may agencies bull ahead? Might the Court conclude that past agency reliance on Chevron, like past court reliance on Chevron, remains lawful? Repealing rules without notice and comment doesn’t resolve these uncertainties—it assumes them away. The APA does not grant agencies such conveniences.

It is strange to treat Loper Bright as an agency-empowering decision. “Whatever respect an Executive Branch interpretation” may deserve, it says, quoting a case from 1840, a judge is not “bound to adopt the construction given by the head of a department.” The APA, too, makes clear that “the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law.” But if an agency’s understanding of the law receives no deference, an agency should not be declaring, on its own authority, which of its regulations are so unlawful as to open up the “good cause” shortcut. The proper course is to go through notice and comment, issue the repeal, then let the courts make the final call.