
Written by Sutherland Institute
June 28, 2024
SALT LAKE CITY (June 28, 2024) – Today, the Supreme Court decided on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a landmark case that protects the Constitution’s separation of powers. Sutherland’s constitutional law and religious freedom fellow, Bill Duncan, released the following statement on the decision:
“This decision is a win for the constitutional separation of powers. We should all welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling to require administrative agencies to demonstrate that their actions are really tied to the legislation they are charged to administer.
“This decision can move current practice closer to the process set out in the Constitution. The current and future administrations should ensure that executive branch officials scrupulously avoid taking on authority not clearly delegated to them.
“Perhaps even more importantly, legislators should work to move from an oversight role for federal agencies and back into the role of making clear laws to guide, or even prevent a need for, agency actions. Elected representatives, particularly at the state level, can and should be trusted to find solutions to the pressing issues for which the Constitution gives them responsibility.
“This decision makes that assumption of responsibility more likely and will allow states to push back on federal overreach knowing that courts will give them a fair hearing rather than just deferring to claims of bureaucratic expertise.”
Contact Nic Dunn to reach Bill Duncan for further statement and interviews.
###
Media Contact:

More Insights
Read More
Scholarship lawsuit might be looking for (legal) meaning in all the wrong places
“Original public meaning” is the best standard for understanding the law. It focuses on the actual language of the law, not on the subjective intent of those who had a role in creating it.
Why the Ninth Circuit unanimously tossed the Huntsman tithing lawsuit
Four judges in concurring opinion say the case was a “transparent fight about the current course of the Church masquerading as a civil lawsuit.”
Special episode: Is a constitutional amendment the answer to money’s influence in politics?
Can a constitutional amendment truly address the issue of money in politics? Is it the right approach?