Search the archive.

With Brett Kavanaugh now settled in at the Supreme Court, academics and others on the left have begun to worry that the court will reduce the power and reach of the federal government’s administrative and regulatory agencies—often called the administrative state. Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, recently wrote in a New York Times op-ed: “The conservative majority [on the court] can, and most likely will, rule against the government using broad theories that would also eat away at the constitutional foundations of the New Deal system, which is essential for protecting health and safety, the environment and much else.” Posner is correct; it’s likely that the court’s new conservative majority will pare back the power of the administrative state when an appropriate case comes before the court. But instead of reducing the protections American get from regulation, the court will be acting to preserve American democracy—something academics and others on the left fail to recognize or appreciate. The administrative state’s threat to democracy arises primarily from a 1984 Supreme Court ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. There, the court directed lower federal courts to defer to administrators’ interpretations of their own statutory authorities, if these interpretations are “reasonable.” Administrative agencies are always looking for ways to increase their powers, and this ruling enabled them to expand the scope of their rules beyond the four corners of the statutory language that is the legal basis for their authority. In the U.S. Constitution, the Framers created a government of separated powers, in which Congress—elected by the people—has the sole power to make the laws; an executive branch, headed by the president, is limited to enforcing the laws; and a judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court, is authorized to interpret the laws. Apart from specific limited powers granted to the president under the Constitution itself, neither the president nor the agencies of the executive branch have any authority to act other than under—and consistent with—a statute enacted by Congress. The actions of administrative agencies, then, are only valid if they are based on authority conferred by Congress. If the rules or regulations of these agencies go beyond that authority, they are not only invalid but amount to unauthorized lawmaking, a violation of the Constitution’s statement that “all legislative power herein granted is vested in a Congress of the United States.” So the fundamental question about the authority of administrative agencies to issue rules is whether these rules are ultimately based on laws enacted by Congress. The deference that the Chevron court accorded to administrative agencies in 1984 enabled them to interpret their statutory authority very broadly, and substantially reduced the likelihood that reviewing courts would object. As a result, in every year since 1993 the agencies of the administrative state have issued over 3,000 rules and regulations—a total of more than 101,000 in 25 years. While that in itself does not prove that these rules were not authorized by Congress, it does suggest that the agencies have been taking full advantage of the Chevron decision to expand their rule-making authority. Many of those who fear elimination or modification of what is called Chevron deference like the policies that the agencies of the administrative state have imposed. But they ignore the fact that, in a democracy, unelected officials should not have the power to make rules that have not been specifically authorized by Congress. That is likely to be the test that the new, more conservative Supreme Court will apply if it modifies or eliminates Chevron. It will authorize lower courts to determine, through what is known as judicial review, whether a rule under challenge is soundly based in statutory language. If it is not, the rule must be adjudged invalid. As now-Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a 2015 court of appeals dissent, “If an agency wants to exercise expansive regulatory authority over some major social or economic activity…an ambiguous grant of authority is not enough. Congress must clearly authorize an agency to take a major regulatory action.” No one who believes that the United States is a democratic republic can argue with this idea. But we should be aware that, for progressives, democracy is often a second choice.

Good riddance to Chevron deference, which the Supreme Court overturned Friday in . For decades, judges cited the 1984 case  as an excuse for shifting their responsibility to federal agencies. Specifically, on questions of statutory interpretation, courts would defer to agencies where the statutory text is “silent or ambiguous” as long as that interpretation “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” That effectively meant putting a two-ton judicial thumb on the scale of government bureaucrats against the little guy. This latest decision is a major victory for the rule of law.

In these cases, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires certain categories of fishing vessels to carry and pay federal observers charged with enforcing agency regulations, subject to a salary cap at 2–3% of the value of the fish harvested on the vessels. But the National Marine Fisheries Service claimed without statutory authorization the right to force fishing boats to pay government monitor salaries of up to 20% of their revenues.

While many government leaders continue to declare their commitment to respect the rule of law as the foundation for peace and human rights, in practice their performance is perforated with lackluster results or outright failure. As a result, people are losing faith in democratic politics and turning to authoritarian alternatives, or simply tuning out. Now more than ever, strong guardrails such as independent judiciaries, robust civil society, and trustworthy elections are needed to stop the slide and build fairer and more accountable systems.

The rule of law recession continues

In discussing this issue, many people tend to forget that the Supreme Court only decided  in 1984, and we had a large and active administrative state long before then. Somehow, the powerful agencies established in the Progressive era, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Nixon administration managed to survive, thrive, and regulate without Chevron.

Pre-Chevron administrative agencies did enjoy the benefit of less extensive forms of judicial deference, such as  Those would likely persist even if Chevron were to be severely limited or overruled. But even if the Supreme Court were to completely eliminate judicial deference to administrative agencies' interpretations of federal law (thereby treating them the same as any other litigant), the latter would still wield enormous discretionary power. In a world where , they would still have broad discretion to determine which violators to go after, and how aggressively. They would also retain control over a broad array of technical questions related to enforcement rules, scientific standards for regulation, and other issues.

It is for these reasons that Professors Seidenfeld and Rossi favor judicial review of an agency rule after the interpretation of the statute has been made.3 °5 Judicial review of agency rulemaking that utilizes various canons of construction, including the Chevron doctrine, is very effective at limiting the scope of congressional delegation. 30 6 Indeed, Chevron operates in the same way the "new" nondelegation doctrine would, upholding exercises of agency discretion if they are reasonable.30 7 Chevron is thus, in a very real sense, a better answer to the problem of delegation for two reasons. First, unlike the "old" nondelegation doctrine, it is judicially enforceable because it is principled analysis rather than an arbitrary "Iknow-it-when-l-see-it" approach to grants of excessive discretionary authority. Second, unlike the "new" doctrine, it is meaningful, after-the-fact review of agency action that neither sacrifices accountability or flexibility, nor places an agency in the position of exercising the discretion that is forbidden in the first place.30 8

That order, in and of itself, is apolitical, because the Chevron sword cuts both ways. In administrations that are seeking to relax protections (such as Reagan’s EPA in the Chevron case itself), agency heads won’t like having their decisions overruled by judges with a different way of seeing things. For presidential administrations that prioritize climate action, curbing pollution, and promoting environmental justice, Chevron deference has helped allow environmental progress. , a senior advocate in NRDC’s Environmental Health program, has argued many cases in federal court where Chevron deference has come into play, and he thinks combatants on both sides of the political divide should bemoan its erasure. Walke says, “Regulatory agencies can be harmed, but deregulatory agencies can be harmed as well.” 

Chevron deference’s detractors argue that the doctrine gives agencies a rubber stamp to impose onerous restrictions and rules. But as noted by the , a nonpartisan law and policy institute, federal agencies face legal challenges to their rules all the time—and only prevail in about 70 percent of these challenges, even with the Chevron doctrine on their side. In other words, their powers are far from unchecked.

The convergence of quantum-enhanced technologies and AI-driven strategies presents a transformative opportunity for small businesses to thrive in an increasingly competitive and uncertain landscape. Throughout this exploration, we have delved into the multifaceted benefits of integrating quantum computing and artificial intelligence into small business management, from driving innovation and economic revival to enhancing resilience and operational efficiency. Firstly, quantum technology offers small businesses unparalleled computational power and optimization capabilities, enabling them to solve complex problems and unlock new opportunities. By leveraging quantum algorithms, businesses can revolutionize supply chain logistics, cybersecurity, and data analysis, driving innovation and differentiation in crowded markets. Similarly, AI integration empowers small businesses to automate processes, analyze data, and personalize customer experiences at scale. From chatbots and recommendation engines to predictive analytics and process automation, AI-powered solutions enhance operational efficiency, drive growth, and improve competitiveness in a digital-first economy.

The implications of such environmental uncertainty for young and small businesses in the United States have been particularly salient in the 21st century. In 2001, the NASDAQ stock market crash and attacks of September 11 reduced consumer confidence, the availability of investment capital, and even faith in political institutions; prior research suggests that such shocks lead to a particularly high rate of new business failures (Honjo, 2000). In 2008, a global financial crisis brought bank failures and a contraction of both personal and small-business funding (DeVaughn & Leary, 2010). More recently, the job losses of the first two months of the COVID-19 crisis far surpass those lost over two years in the Great Recession (Coibion et al., 2020). Taken together, these changes in the external environment mean that entrepreneurs and small business managers had to confront extreme environmental uncertainty to a degree likely not witnessed in the United States for more than half a century.

The Chevron doctrine, stemming from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., has profoundly shaped the way U.S. regulatory agencies interpret and enforce federal statutes. By allowing agencies to exercise their expertise within their regulatory domain, provided their interpretations are reasonable, Chevron deference strikes a balance between legal oversight and regulatory efficiency. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the combined cases Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The fate of the Chevron doctrine hangs in the balance, and many commentators believe the Court will discard Chevron. Let’s discuss the implications of such a decision on intellectual property law and regulations, with a particular focus on what it might mean for smaller entities like technology startups. While the future remains uncertain, exploring the possible ramifications of such a legal shift offers valuable insight into how innovation and regulatory compliance might evolve. The Law of Unintended Consequences In evaluating the potential dismantling of the Chevron doctrine, it’s instructive to consider the principle known as “the law of unintended consequences” and the metaphor of Chesterton’s Fence. The latter, from the writings of G.K. Chesterton, suggests that one should not remove a fence without first understanding why it was erected in the first place. This wisdom underscores the importance of considering the original purpose and the potential ramifications of altering long-standing legal and regulatory structures, such as Chevron deference. The principle of Chesterton’s Fence—urging caution before removing established structures without understanding their purpose—is illustrated in the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. Enacted with the intention of streamlining the patent process and reducing litigation, the AIA marked the most significant overhaul of the U.S. patent system in decades. Among its reforms, the shift from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-inventor-to-file” system was aimed at simplifying the application process and aligning U.S. patent law with international standards. However, the AIA’s well-intentioned changes brought about unintended consequences that underscore the complexity of reforming existing laws—including intellectual property laws. Some smaller inventors and startups, which the patent system seeks to protect and encourage, found themselves at a disadvantage to larger counterparts, struggling with the increased pace and cost of filing patents in what has become more of a “race to the patent office” environment. This real-world example underscores not just the potential for unintended consequences within patent law, but also serves as a cautionary tale for broader regulatory environments. As the AIA’s reforms have shown, changes intended to simplify and improve one area of the law can lead to increased challenges for those it aims to benefit, particularly small entities and startups. This experience mirrors the concerns surrounding the potential overhaul of the Chevron doctrine. The doctrine, much like a proverbial fence, was established to address specific needs within the regulatory and judicial landscape, balancing agency expertise and judicial oversight. It has, over the decades, facilitated a certain predictability and efficiency in how federal statutes are interpreted and enforced, particularly in complex areas intersecting with intellectual property law. Intellectual property, by its nature, thrives on a delicate balance between protecting innovators’ rights and fostering a competitive, dynamic environment conducive to further innovation. As we await the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the fate of the Chevron doctrine, it’s important to ponder the “fence” that Chevron represents—not just as a barrier but as a boundary that delineates roles and responsibilities within the federal regulatory framework. Removing this boundary without fully appreciating its function could introduce a series of unintended consequences, particularly for the realm of intellectual property. These consequences might manifest as increased litigation, higher barriers to entry for startups, and a chilling effect on the very innovation that intellectual property laws are designed to promote. The Potential Impact of Less Regulatory Deference on Intellectual Property The impending decision on the Chevron doctrine not only raises questions about the direction of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), but also signals potential shifts across a spectrum of regulatory environments intersecting with intellectual property (IP). The USPTO, which relies on Chevron deference for interpreting complex statutes in patent law, exemplifies the immediate challenges of a post-Chevron landscape. Should this deference be curtailed, the agency’s decisions and regulations might face heightened scrutiny and uncertainty, complicating the patent examination process and affecting applicants’ strategies. This scenario at the USPTO serves as a microcosm for the broader regulatory ecosystem. Similar challenges could ripple through antitrust enforcement, where the FTC and DOJ navigate IP rights within competitive markets; biotechnology, where the FDA’s expedited approval processes for new medical innovations could slow; environmental law, with the EPA’s facilitation of green technologies potentially facing roadblocks; and telecommunications, as the FCC’s management of spectrum rights and net neutrality principles might encounter increased litigation. Each of these domains relies on a nuanced interpretation of laws that govern the balance between innovation, public interest, and market competition. Accordingly, a shift in Chevron deference, therefore, could potentially introduce a layer of unpredictability and legal complexity, affecting not just the USPTO but also the broader landscape of regulatory action that is intertwined with intellectual property. This interconnectedness underscores the need for careful consideration of the potential consequences that such a legal shift might entail for innovation and regulatory clarity across industries. Overarching Concerns for Small Entities “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” – Neil Bohrs, Nobel-prize winning physicist It’s impossible to predict exactly what the impact of overturning the Chevron doctrine will be, but it’s worth thinking about the effect on IP law and innovation, particularly related to small entities. In a landscape where regulatory guidance could become less predictable, these entities—already navigating the complexities of innovation and market entry—could find themselves disproportionately affected. Small entities and startups thrive on their agility to innovate and bring disruptive technologies to market. However, this agility is predicated on a stable legal and regulatory framework. Chevron deference arguably provides that—at least to a greater extent than the alternative. This enables smaller players to navigate patent laws and regulatory approvals with a greater degree of certainty. The potential erosion of this deference could potentially pose several challenges, including: Increased Legal Complexity and Costs: Without the guiding principle of Chevron deference, small entities may face a tangled web of regulatory interpretations, leading to increased litigation costs and legal complexities. For startups, where resources are finite, these additional expenses could divert crucial funding away from research and development, stifling innovation at its source. Difficulty in Raising Capital: Investors seek stability and predictability. The prospect of a more uncertain regulatory environment makes the task of securing investment potentially more daunting for small entities. The fear of protracted legal battles and the potential for sudden shifts in regulatory stance could deter investment in new and innovative ventures, particularly those that challenge the status quo. Barriers to Market Entry and Competitive Positioning: The ability to quickly adapt and bring innovations to market is a cornerstone of startup success. Chevron deference has arguably, at least to some extent, streamlined the regulatory approval process, allowing small entities to plan and execute their market entry strategies with confidence. Without it, the pathway to market could become more cumbersome, delaying the introduction of innovative products and services and affecting competitive positioning within the industry. Conclusion As the legal community and industry stakeholders await the Supreme Court’s decision, the exploration of these potential implications underscores the importance of preparing for a range of outcomes in the evolving landscape of IP law and innovation. As we navigate these complex issues, the wisdom of Chesterton’s Fence reminds us that in the pursuit of legal reform, understanding the foundations of our regulatory structures is paramount. Only then can we ensure that our efforts to foster innovation do not inadvertently undermine the very ecosystem we aim to protect.

For a small business, anything that reduces risk and increases stability and predictability makes opening, survival, and growth more possible. A consistent regulatory environment can provide the uniformity and predictability small businesses need to thrive. When entrepreneurs know the rules of the playing field, they can determine the best next strategic move for their business. A well-structured regulatory environment can also put small businesses on even footing with big corporations, allowing Main Street to be competitive with Wall Street.

Chevron deference promotes that regulatory certainty. By creating a stable framework for courts to use when evaluating the validity of regulations, Chevron results in a more uniform and predictable interpretation of regulations. Chevron has also been shown to play a critical role in constraining the judiciary, ensuring that the judiciary’s policy preferences do not drive regulatory policy.

II. CHEVRON PROMOTES THE REGULATORY CERTAINTY NECESSARY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

This Court has recognized the “stabilizing purpose of Chevron.” City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290, 307 (2013). Chevron provides a predictable framework for interpreting regulations, giving deference to agency decisions in the face of ambiguity and therefore allowing businesses to better rely on regulations and plan for the future. Chevron also promotes the rule of law by serving as a check on judicial power. Chevron deference has been shown to curb the judiciary from imposing its own ideological or policy-driven perspectives when interpreting regulations. Both create more stability in the regulatory environment, stability that is of critical importance for small businesses. Removing this framework will set off a cascade of consequences that will harm small businesses, stifle innovation, and undermine progress towards a more equitable economy. Small businesses must already navigate a dynamic and uncertain environment without being subject to the regulatory instability that would ensue if Chevron were overturned.

First, easy deference to agency statutory interpretations incentivizes Congress to adopt—or leave in place—open-ended or vague statutes that operate as broad delegations of legislative authority. This practice is at odds with our government’s basic structural design. The Constitution vests “[a]ll legislative Powers” in Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1 (emphasis added). The core of that legislative power is “to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society.” The Federalist No. 75, at 449 (Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003). The text of Article I “permits no delegation of those powers.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 472 (2001); accord Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1, 42–43 (1825) (Marshall, C.J.) (“It will not be contended that Congress can delegate . . . powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative.”). And where the Constitution does permit the Executive to participate in lawmaking, it carefully circumscribes that participation—the President may either approve and sign a bill, or otherwise return it to Congress. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 7. This process of bicameralism and presentment ensures democratic accountability, and largely limits the Executive to executing laws that Congress enacts. While some interpretive judgment may be necessary for the Executive to apply statutes to particular facts, the Constitution does not allow unilateral lawmaking in the Executive Branch.

Modern Chevron doctrine, supported by permissive non-delegation precedent, subverts this prohibition by allowing administrative agencies to enact rules governing private conduct based on strained interpretations of general language in existing statutes. The Court’s non-delegation precedents have been interpreted to allow Congress to delegate vast rulemaking power to agencies, so long as Congress provides some sort of “intelligible principle” to purport to guide their discretion. See generally Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2138–42 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (tracing this development). Shielded from rigorous enforcement of non-delegation principles, agencies have routinely claimed broad authority to adopt new rules governing regulated entities. Congress allows—and, by enacting broad statutes, even invites—agencies to do so because many courts applying Chevron do not carefully analyze whether an agency’s interpretation of a statutory provision comports with the correct reading of that provision. Instead, courts all too quickly find “ambiguities” in statutory provisions – and then readily conclude that agencies’ interpretations of such provisions are “reasonable.” See, e.g., Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2120–21 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

The Supreme Court today made it harder for environmental agencies or any other regulators to defend their actions in court — putting at risk rules designed to tackle far-reaching problems such as climate change.

Environmentalists are particularly concerned that  — one of the most widely cited precedents in the court’s history — could undercut a flurry of ambitious rules from the Biden administration to slash planet-warming pollution.

Among the EPA rules that the high court has upheld on Chevron grounds are measures addressing air permits for greenhouse gases, interstate ozone requirements, state water quality certifications, cooling water intake rules and Endangered Species Act (ESA) considerations in state water permit delegations, among others.

The SG's brief noted that "all relevant stare decisis considerations weigh against the radical step" of overturning the doctrine. "[Over]ruling Chevron would threaten the settled expectations of parties who have relied on agency rules or orders upheld under it," the brief warned, and would "undermine the actual integrity of the judicial process."

Environmental regulation is the final area in which an activist conservative Court could have a substantial effect. The source of the Court’s power here lies in the relationship between environmental legislation and regulation. In general, Congress has chosen to deal with the environment by passing very general laws and delegating the authority to implement them to regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

An activist conservative Court could make life difficult for a Democratic EPA by blocking regulation directly, declaring it “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. The courts are only supposed to use this tool to block actions that are genuinely irrational or that exceed the agency’s legal authority; but the Court could deploy it much more aggressively than has been done in the past.

The risk of global societal collapse or human extinction has been “dangerously underexplored”, climate scientists have warned in an analysis. They call such a catastrophe the “climate endgame”. Though it had a small chance of occurring, given the uncertainties in future emissions and the climate system, cataclysmic scenarios could not be ruled out, they said. “Facing a future of accelerating climate change while blind to worst-case scenarios is naive risk management at best and fatally foolish at worst,” the scientists said, adding that there were “ample reasons” to suspect global heating could result in an apocalyptic disaster. The international team of experts argue the world needs to start preparing for the possibility of the climate endgame. “Analysing the mechanisms for these extreme consequences could help galvanise action, improve resilience, and inform policy,” they said. Explorations in the 1980s of the nuclear winter that would follow a nuclear war spurred public concern and disarmament efforts, the researchers said. The analysis proposes a research agenda, including what they call the “four horsemen” of the climate endgame: famine, extreme weather, war and disease. They also called for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce a special report on the issue. The of heating drove a “groundswell of public concern”, they said. “There are plenty of reasons to believe climate change could become catastrophic, even at modest levels of warming,” said Dr Luke Kemp at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, who led the analysis. “Climate change has played a role in every mass extinction event. It has helped fell empires and shaped history. “Paths to disaster are not limited to the direct impacts of high temperatures, such as extreme weather events. Knock-on effects such as financial crises, conflict and new disease outbreaks could trigger other calamities.” The analysis is published in the journal and was reviewed by a dozen scientists. It argues that the consequences of global heating beyond 3C have been underexamined, with few quantitative estimates of the total impacts. “We know least about the scenarios that matter most,” Kemp said. A thorough risk assessment would consider how risks spread, interacted and amplified, but had not been attempted, the scientists said. “Yet this is how risk unfolds in the real world,” they said. “For example, a cyclone destroys electrical infrastructure, leaving a population vulnerable to an ensuing deadly heatwave.” The Covid pandemic underlined the need to examine rare but high-impact global risks, they added. Particularly concerning are tipping points, where a small rise in global temperature results in a big change in the climate, such as huge carbon emissions from an Amazon rainforest suffering major droughts and fires. Tipping points could and some remained little studied, they said, such as the that could cause an additional 8C of global warming. The researchers warn that climate breakdown could exacerbate or trigger other catastrophic risks, such as international wars or infectious disease pandemics, and worsen existing vulnerabilities such as poverty, crop failures and lack of water. The analysis suggests superpowers may one day fight over geoengineering plans to reflect sunlight or the right to emit carbon. “There is a striking overlap between currently vulnerable states and future areas of extreme warming,” the scientists said. “If current political fragility does not improve significantly in the coming decades, then a belt of instability with potentially serious ramifications could occur.” There were further good reasons to be concerned about the potential of a global climate catastrophe, the scientists said: “There are warnings from history. Climate change has played a role in the and in each of the five mass extinction events in Earth’s history.” New modelling in the analysis shows that extreme heat – defined as an annual average temperature of more than 29C – could affect 2 billion people by 2070 if carbon emissions continue. “Such temperatures currently affect around 30 million people in the Sahara and Gulf Coast,” said Chi Xu, at Nanjing University in China, who was part of the team. “By 2070, these temperatures and the social and political consequences will directly affect two nuclear powers, and seven maximum containment laboratories housing the most dangerous pathogens. There is serious potential for disastrous knock-on effects.” The current trend of greenhouse gas emissions would cause a rise of 2.1-3.9C by 2100. But if existing pledges of action are fully implemented, the range would be 1.9-3C. Achieving all long-term targets set to date would mean 1.7-2.6C of warming. “Even these optimistic assumptions lead to dangerous Earth system trajectories,” the scientists said. Temperatures more than 2C above pre-industrial levels had not been sustained on Earth for more than 2.6m years, they said, far before the rise of human civilisation, which had risen in a “narrow climatic envelope” over the past 10,000 years. “The more we learn about how our planet functions, the greater the reason for concern,” said Prof Johan Rockström, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “We increasingly understand that our planet is a more sophisticated and fragile organism. We must do the maths of disaster in order to avoid it

In one well-known case, the Supreme Court relied on the Chevron doctrine in 2014 when it upheld EPA emissions reduction standards for 28 states whose air pollution crossed state lines and harmed downwind neighbors. Although the Clean Air Act is vague on the issue, the court ruled that EPA had reasonably interpreted its authority under the law.

It’s unclear how far the court’s conservative majority will go in its decision.

4 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should" in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", 1 -- makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or 2 -- constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16

Footnote 13:

We have also stressed, however, that it is generally for Congress, not the courts, to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause’s objectives. See Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S., at 230 (“Th[e] evolution of the duration of copyright protection tellingly illustrates the difficulties Congress faces … . [I]t is not our role to alter the delicate balance Congress has labored to achieve.”); Sony, 464 U.S., at 429 (“[I]t is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of [rights] that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product.”); Graham, 383 U.S., at 6 (“Within the limits of the constitutional grant, the Congress may, of course, implement the stated purpose of the Framers by selecting the policy which in its judgment best effectuates the constitutional aim.”). The justifications we earlier set out for Congress’ enactment of the CTEA, supra, at 14—17, provide a rational basis for the conclusion that the CTEA “promote[s] the Progress of Science.”

The strength of IPR systems depends on two distinct elements of a country’s institutional environment, the strength of IPR law protection and the effectiveness of public IPR enforcement (Peng et al. 2017a). Existing studies on the effect of national IPR systems on inward FDI horizontal productivity spillovers to domestic firms however, focus solely on the effect of IPR law protection (Arora 2009) and are therefore likely to suffer from biased results. Studies ignoring the effect of the strength of public IPR enforcement are likely to systematically overestimate the effect of IPR law protection strength (Papageorgiadis and Sofka 2020). This could also explain the mixed results in the existing literature, such as the finding of negative (Iršová and Havránek 2013), positive (Yi et al. 2015), and insignificant (Smeets and de Vaal 2016) effects on FDI horizontal productivity spillovers from inward FDI. Focusing on only one element of IPR systems in their empirical modelling but arguing for the importance of IPR systems overall, existing studies de facto assumed that both IPR law protection and the effectiveness of public IPR enforcement developed equally over time and have a uniform effect on inward FDI horizontal productivity spillovers. This leads to biased estimates of the effect of IPR law protection in each respective study and the mixed findings across studies and hence handicaps research narratives of the impact of IPR protection on inward FDI horizontal productivity spillovers to domestic firms.

The contemporary context of IPR systems internationally after the signing of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement in 1995 is substantially different to the way it is theorized in the existing literature. Although most countries have significantly increased the availability of IPR law protection in their IPR systems after TRIPS, the effectiveness with which the IPR laws and legal mechanisms are enforced in practice by public authorities continues to be questionable for many countries (Athreye et al. 2020; Papageorgiadis and McDonald 2019; Peng et al. 2017a, 2017b). This is because although the TRIPS agreement requires signatory countries to provide a number of specific legislative procedures in relation to enforcement mechanisms, it does not set any obligations/requirements regarding how effectively IPR laws are enforced by relevant public agents in practice (WTO 2017). Therefore, while most WTO countries nowadays offer IPR law protection that is generally comprehensive (Park 2008; Peng et al. 2017a), the levels of effectiveness of public IPR enforcement continue to vary significantly between countries (Brander et al. 2017; Papageorgiadis and McDonald 2019).