The U.S. Supreme Court concluded its significant session with a series of rulings that could make it harder to enforce federal regulations impacting various sectors like food safety, water quality, and housing discrimination. The rulings mark a victory for conservative legal groups and business interests, seen as a blow to the federal regulatory system. Legal experts suggest that California, with its robust administrative state, may not be as affected by these rulings as other states, as it has its own stringent regulations in place.
California’s state regulations, covering areas from worker protections to LGBTQ rights on college campuses, often meet or exceed federal standards. In the face of potential rollbacks from Washington, California strengthened many rules during the Trump administration. However, the state has limits on overriding federal statutes due to federal preemption decrees by the courts.
The Supreme Court’s rulings, including the removal of the “Chevron deference” rule, could result in more legal challenges against federal regulations, giving regulated industries higher chances of success in challenging rules. These decisions, all ruled 6-3 in the court’s conservative majority, may particularly impact climate change regulations, posing challenges to federal regulators in adopting innovative approaches.
California’s own regulations, especially in areas like labor laws, can often surpass federal requirements. For instance, California has a higher minimum wage and stricter rules on workplace safety compared to federal standards. The state’s regulations, like protections against heat illness in workplaces, will remain intact despite potential federal legal challenges.
While California has a history of resisting federal regulatory changes, recent laws aimed at aligning state rules with federal statutes under the Trump administration didn’t always pan out. With the recent Supreme Court rulings, California might serve as a model for a regulatory landscape after the end of Chevron deference, as the state’s courts have not adopted a Chevron-like rule.
Legal experts speculate on the impact of the court’s rulings, suggesting that the situation may not be as dire as some anticipate. Some experts point to California’s approach to regulations as a potential model for how courts might navigate post-Chevron rulings. The outcome of regulatory challenges may heavily depend on the ideology of judges, mirroring the political polarization in society.