Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• The U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower court order blocking mass layoffs at the Department of Education. The Court offered no explanation supporting its 6-3 decision. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority’s decision would “unleash untold harm” on “this Nation’s education system and individual students.” The decision advanced President Donald J. Trump’s March executive order directing the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, to “facilitate the closure” of the Education Department. Shortly after the Court’s ruling, employees at the Education Department received emails notifying them that they will be terminated on August 1.
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld West Virginia’s ban on mifepristone – a medication used to end pregnancies during the first ten weeks of gestation – ruling that the state ban does not conflict with the regulatory powers of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory powers. The 2-1 decision marks the first federal appeals court decision restricting the use of mifepristone. This decision follows the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling last year rejecting a challenge to an FDA rule broadening access to mifepristone, after the Court deemed that the pro-life challengers lacked the ability to bring a lawsuit due to a lack of injury.
• The U.S. District Court for Rhode Island upheld the regulation at issue in the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which requires fishing vessels to cover the cost of carrying at-sea monitors. In Loper Bright, the Court concluded that a court must independently decide whether a statute authorizes an agency’s regulatory action without deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statute. The Court returned the case to lower courts to decide the validity of the regulation under this standard. Senior District Judge William E. Smith concluded that requiring fishing vessels to cover the cost of carrying at-sea monitors fell under the the National Marine Fisheries Service’s congressionally delegated authority to implement measures “necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery.”
• A federal judge vacated a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule allowing medical debt to be removed from credit reports. The CFPB finalized the rule during the Biden Administration in January 2025. U.S. District Judge Sean D. Jordan found that the CFPB lacked the authority to implement this rule because the Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibits the CFPB from erasing medical debt from credit reports. This decision followed a March ruling by a federal judge blocking the Trump administration from dissolving the CFPB.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has eliminated regulations concerning “utility-style burdens,” similar to burdens placed upon utility companies, on the internet. The eliminated regulations were largely obsolete, with some concerning net neutrality implemented by the Biden Administration that were struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2025. Other eliminated regulations concerned defunct requirements for utilities and customers that were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 25 years ago but were never removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. All regulations were eliminated as part of the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” docket implemented to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens.
• FDA initiated the reauthorization process for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary advocating for lower industry fees to reduce the cost of drug approvals. The process, which began with a public meeting, aims to secure a commitment letter from FDA and other industry stakeholders for Congress to reauthorize the program by 2027. Supporters claim that lower fees could ease financial burdens on smaller drugmakers, while critics warn that reduced funding might compromise FDA’s ability to ensure drug safety and efficacy
• Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order launching a pilot program to use artificial intelligence (AI) to streamline state regulations. The initiative directs AI to scan Virginia’s regulatory framework to identify outdated, contradictory, or complex rules, aiming to reduce regulatory burdens by 25 percent. Supporters praised the effort as a step toward enhancing government efficiency, while critics raised concerns about environmental impacts, noting that AI data centers strain Virginia’s power and water resources. The program builds on Youngkin’s prior efforts to reduce regulations and aims to set a national precedent for AI-driven governance.
• The U.S. House of Representatives voted to advance debate on the GENIUS Act, a bill to establish a regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, following intense negotiations to overcome opposition from several Republican holdouts. The procedural vote narrowly passed, clearing the way for a final vote expected soon. Supporters, including President Trump, contended that the bill would position the United States as a global crypto leader, while critics argued it lacks sufficient safeguards against financial corruption. The legislation, which the Senate has already passed, aims to provide consumer protections and foster digital asset innovation.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

•  In a recent article, Daniel J. Hemel, a professor of law at New York University School of Law, discussed how the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended deference to agencies’ statutory interpretation, will create more temporal uniformity but result in more circuit splits on ambiguous statutes. Hemel claimed that this decision will likely reduce regulatory uncertainty and allow individuals and businesses to relocate to an area with their preferred regulatory regime. On the other hand, Hemel noted that Loper Bright is likely to produce “significant uncertainty” about the validity of regulations upheld under the prior deference regime and incorrectly balances the branches of government. Hemel concluded that the choice between centralization and the devolution of power to states generates unique trade-offs between temporal uniformity and circuit splits—neither of which is always superior.
• In a recent Brookings Institution essay, Barry G. Rabe, a nonresident senior fellow of governance studies at the Center for Effective Public Management at Brookings, discussed the political dilemma surrounding America’s management of the highly radioactive materials produced as a byproduct of nuclear reactors, otherwise known as high-level nuclear waste. Rabe noted that while nuclear energy comprises nearly one-fifth of American electricity, and has garnered a recent increase in bipartisan support and popularity, there is a general reluctance among the states as to how to store high-level nuclear waste. In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision giving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission power to approve an interim waste storage facility in Texas, the outcome of any state facility looks uncertain. Rabe also explored Canada and other Western nation’s success in storing nuclear waste in permanent facilities by building public support through a variety of “deliberative processes”, compared to the United States which focuses on more temporary measures.
• In a recent Brookings Institution essay, Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explored President Trump’s push for Congress to approve rescissions to cut federal spending on regulatory programs. Binder explained that President Trump’s strategy relies on the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act but faces resistance from Republicans wary of political backlash from slashing popular programs. She concluded that GOP hesitancy reflects tensions between fiscal conservatism and electoral pressures, potentially stalling rescissions and complicating President Trump’s deregulatory agenda.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

•  In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Harvey L. Reiter, senior counsel at Stinson LLP, argued that EPA’s move to repeal its “endangerment finding” rule, which found that six greenhouse gases together harm public health, will run into steep legal hurdles. Reiter argued that because the rule was issued using the standard notice-and-comment process, the same procedure must be followed to repeal it. Reiter also noted that the agency must take into account that utilities, industries, and other businesses have relied heavily on the rule to reduce emissions and promote alternative energy sources. If parties sue over the repeal, Reiter suggested that the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo may hinder the government’s attempt to override its own statutory interpretation. Reiter also added that, given the wealth of recent data on climate change, it would be difficult for EPA to support the repeal with substantial evidence.