View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]

Conservatives are questioning Attorney General Pam Bondi on why DOJ continues to defend Loper Bright in the D.C. Circuit and the Senate’s Post-Chevron working group released its report that includes a Legislative Drafter’s Guide to Deference, Delegation, and Discretion after Loper Bright ([link removed]) .


** National Review’s Dan McLaughlin Asks Why AG Bondi’s DOJ is “Still Fighting Loper Bright”
------------------------------------------------------------

National Review’s Dan McLaughlin wonders why ([link removed]) Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice continues to defend the regulation at issue in Loper Bright in the D.C. Circuit:

You might have thought that Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was a great and conclusive victory for conservatives, and one that would be eagerly embraced by MAGA Republicans eager to housebreak the administrative “deep state.” So, why is this administration’s Justice Department still defending the Loper Bright case?

McLaughlin specifically notes that the DOJ has made no changes to the legal team working on the Loper case:

The Court, having decided the big question, sent the smaller one back to the lower courts to decide under the proper standard. So, Loper Bright is now back at the D.C. Circuit, as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Lutnick. And guess who’s defending it? The Department of Justice under Donald Trump and Pam Bondi. The case is still being defended by Daniel Halainen, a career DOJ attorney hired during the Obama administration, who argued it before the D.C. Circuit back when he was working for Merrick Garland and previously worked on the legal team defending Loper Bright and Chevron at the Supreme Court.

Halainen is still at it, but it’s unclear how much supervision he’s getting from the DOJ, or why the DOJ is still insisting on imposing these costs on boats full of working-class fishermen. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo., which chided courts for not deferring to the policy decisions of agencies where the law allows the agency that discretion.
[link removed]
[link removed]
Read more ([link removed])


** The Post-Chevron Senate Working Group’s Legislative Drafter’s Guide to Deference, Delegation, and Discretion after Loper Bright
------------------------------------------------------------

Following the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine granting federal agencies broad deference to interpret statutes, a “Post-Chevron Working Group” comprised of twenty Republican Senators began working to outline a proper legislative response to the decision and to define a “best practices” for future legislative action. On June 5, 2025, the working group published a 150-page report ([link removed]) outlining its findings and recommendations.

Among the material presented, the working group included a section detailing a “Legislative Drafter’s Guide to Deference, Delegation, and Discretion.” After discussing the meaning of deference, delegation, and discretion, and their relevance to the drafting of new legislation, the report included best practices. The goal of new legislation, the report concluded, should be to limit agency action to “ministerial duties.” The text of the statue itself should define the cost-benefit analysis underlying the statute and avoid vague buzzwords that grant agencies enormous leeway to steer legislation away from the legislation’s purpose. As the report notes, “[e]very degree of additional precision, definition provided, or buzzword avoided takes away legal arguments an agency can utilize to exercise discretion or otherwise stretch the meaning of a statute.”


** Best Practices
------------------------------------------------------------

To that end, the report recommended the following key elements ([link removed]) for any new legislation.
1. Define your terms
2. Use precise and specific terms
3. Think Like an Administrator
4. Avoid Buzzword

Read more ([link removed])


** Events and Scholarship
------------------------------------------------------------


** Latest Papers
------------------------------------------------------------
* Emory Law School’s Jonathan Remy Nash writes on “Chevron Stare Decisis in a Post-Loper Bright World ([link removed]) ” in the Iowa Law Review.
* Ohio State University’s Blaine G. Saito new research paper argues that Loper’s impact on tax law may be “more limited than expected” in “Tax Regulations in a Loper Bright Light ([link removed]) .”
* Bernard W. Bell from the Rutgers Law School – Newark in the Seton Hall Law Review on “Loper Bright: Resurrecting Skidmore in a New Era ([link removed]) .”
* Matthew Mulholland from the Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law with “Beyond Saving Ink: How the Current Court Finds Meaning in Statutory Variations Post-Loper Bright ([link removed]) .”


** Events
------------------------------------------------------------
* The Federalist Society is hosting a Webinar on July 1 at 2:00 PM ET on Loper and the NLRB: Does "Board Law" Matter after Loper Bright? ([link removed])
+ Featuring:
o Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law
o Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
o (Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC


[link removed]
[link removed]

Copyright (C) 2025 Americans for Prosperity Foundation. All rights reserved.

This email was sent to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
why did I get this? ([link removed]) unsubscribe from this list ([link removed]) update subscription preferences ([link removed])
Americans for Prosperity Foundation . 4201 Wilson Blvd . Arlington, VA 22203-4417 . USA