Recent Supreme Court rulings have changed how federal regulations are challenged, defended, and interpreted—and associations should prepare accordingly.
Rulemaking in the second Trump Administration is proceeding in a drastically different landscape than in the first. Decision after Supreme Court decision has changed long-settled administrative law in fundamental ways. For associations, these changes mean more chances to challenge rules that burden members, but also more risk to rules that create a stable platform for their members’ operations. Associations would be well advised to learn about the decisions and how they’re being applied in courts around the country, and then to arm themselves for the potential fights to come in this new era of administrative law.
The decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is the most famous of the new decisions. Under the longstanding Chevron doctrine, federal courts had deferred to the executive branch’s reasonable interpretations of unclear statutory provisions. Chevron was one of the most cited and influential cases in Supreme Court history. During its four-decade reign, the executive branch mostly won on statutory interpretation questions in court. But in Loper Bright, in a 6-3 decision by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron and declared that statutes have a “single, best meaning” for federal judges to determine—a reasonable but debatable interpretation won’t be enough for the executive branch anymore.
The rise of the major questions doctrine makes it even clearer that the world of Chevron is gone. In West Virginia v. EPA, in another 6-3 opinion by the chief justice, the court explained that the doctrine applies in certain cases involving agency assertions of power to make decisions of “vast economic and political significance.” In these “extraordinary cases,” the doctrine requires the agency to identify “clear congressional authorization”—not merely what might be thought the best meaning of the statute. So a thumb in favor of the executive branch has not just been lifted; in certain cases, it’s been placed on the other side of the scale entirely.
And the court didn’t stop there. Just a few days after Loper Bright, the court added the decision in Corner Post v. Board of Governors, this time in a 6-3 opinion by Justice Barrett. It had generally been understood that the six-year clock for Administrative Procedure Act challenges to a final rule expires six years after the rule’s issuance. The court upended that understanding by holding instead that the clock starts when a particular plaintiff is injured, even if the plaintiff is a business that first opened more than six years after the rule being challenged. Now, under Corner Post, many rules will remain open for challenge indefinitely no matter how long they’ve been on the books—and, under Loper Bright, without deference as to statutory interpretation. It’s no surprise that dissenting justices and some commentators warned of a “tsunami” of litigation challenging federal regulations.
Associations should understand that, depending on the particular issue, these changes can be used either for or against their interests. While they may have a deregulatory effect in the aggregate, the changes are not inherently partisan, nor do they invariably favor deregulation. Loper Bright requires courts to adopt the best interpretation of a statute, and statutes sometimes require more regulation than the executive branch may prefer. Early cases show the point. For instance, a Maryland federal court has used Loper Bright in ruling for plaintiffs challenging a Trump Administration regulation regarding the Affordable Care Act marketplace, because the statute likely required more protection than the Administration was offering. Loper Bright can support deregulation, but it can also be used against it.
Similarly, while the Trump Administration is invoking the major questions doctrine as a reason for repealing rules it argues were issued without statutory authority, that doctrine can also be used against the Administration. In February 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s effort to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs of “unlimited amount and duration,” with the chief justice applying the major questions doctrine and refusing to read ambiguous text as such an “extraordinary delegation.” Associations should assume the doctrine can cut against any administration that claims too much power from too little statutory text.
The federal courts have not seen the tsunami of litigation many feared—but it is unclear whether that is because there is no tsunami or because it is gathering strength offshore. One possibility is that the regulated community has been waiting to see what happens, given the Trump Administration’s publicized intent itself to review and repeal existing regulations that exceed statutory authority as viewed through the lens of Loper Bright and West Virginia.
Wait-and-see is not the right strategy. Instead, even associations with no desire to litigate should be pressure-testing the regulations that matter most to members—both the rules they want changed and the rules they need to keep. Such Loper Bright checks—ideally conducted by a team including sector experts and experts in how these Supreme Court decisions are being understood and applied in courts around the country—can be vitally important for both offense and defense.
On offense, Loper Bright checks to identify vulnerability in the regulations inhibiting members’ operations, including new Trump Administration regulations, can of course support litigation. But these checks can also inform associations’ discussions with members and other stakeholders, improve comments on pending rulemaking proposals, or in some instances support direct conversations with Trump Administration decision makers who are primed to act on how particular regulations may not square with the best interpretation of the underlying statute.
On defense, those associations that want to preserve existing regulations should not mistake a quieter docket for safety. Once the Administration’s rulemaking intentions have come into better focus, regulated parties may bring suit to challenge arguably vulnerable regulations the Administration doesn’t announce an intention to displace. A Loper Bright check can help associations anticipate, fight, and contingency plan for challenges their adversaries bring to the rules members rely on—such as regulations governing permits, safe harbors, funding streams, and compliance frameworks—especially in highly regulated sectors.
Either way, informed preparation is essential for regulated parties to best protect their interests in this new era of administrative law.
