Close Menu
Legal MagLegal Mag
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
What's On

Experts weigh in on Karen Read’s lawsuit after criminal trial

July 4, 2025

AT&T settles lawsuits over data breaches: How to get a payment

June 25, 2025

Seven charged in $100M California jewelry heist, largest in US history

June 19, 2025

States challenge bankrupt 23andMe’s right to auction genetic information

June 11, 2025

Jimmy Buffett’s widow battles co-trustee over $275 million trust

June 6, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Legal MagLegal Mag
Newsletter
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
Legal MagLegal Mag
Home » Impact of the ‘Loper Bright’ Decision on New Jersey State Deference
Regulation

Impact of the ‘Loper Bright’ Decision on New Jersey State Deference

News RoomBy News RoomAugust 8, 20241 Min Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest WhatsApp Email

On Friday June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated and consequential decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, eliminating the decades-old Chevron deference standard, and therefore, severely limiting the ability of federal administrative agencies in the development, implementation and enforcement of their regulatory authorities. 

While the immediate impact of Loper Bright is limited to the matter challenged, the Supreme Court’s holding marks a fundamental change to the ability of federal agencies to interpret their enabling authorities and is sure to result in myriad challenges to agency actions related to new, and in some cases, long-standing regulatory structures based on a lack of clear statutory authority and delegation. In short, with the elimination of Chevron deference, nearly every federal regulation and action taken thereunder may be subject to non-deferential, or de novo, judicial review of its underlying statutory charge.

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Previous ArticleCooley Faces Legal Malpractice Lawsuit in Miami Claiming Firm’s Attorneys Weren’t Licensed in Florida
Next Article Fighting an Employee: Here’s When Brian Sutherland Says Employers Should Throw in the Towel

Related Posts

‘Firms Fear the PR Hit, Not the Sanction’: Big Law on Edge After Simpson Thacher AML Prosecution

August 22, 2024

Federal, State Antitrust Collaboration Reaches ‘Historic Level,’ Colorado’s Attorney General Says

August 21, 2024

Federal Judge Maintains NY’s Partial Jury Verdict Against Makers of Prevagen; Affirms Use of §63(12)

August 21, 2024
Latest Articles

AT&T settles lawsuits over data breaches: How to get a payment

June 25, 20250 Views

Seven charged in $100M California jewelry heist, largest in US history

June 19, 20250 Views

States challenge bankrupt 23andMe’s right to auction genetic information

June 11, 20250 Views

Jimmy Buffett’s widow battles co-trustee over $275 million trust

June 6, 20252 Views
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Vimeo
Don't Miss

The 2024 Am Law 100: Ranked by Gross Revenue

By News RoomApril 16, 2024

For the full 2024 Am Law 100 report, click here. For more ways to analyze the…

The 2024 A-List: Top 20 Firms

August 6, 2024

Defending Claims Where Extreme Weather Is to Blame: Our Changing Climate’s Impact on Civil Litigation

July 18, 2024
© 2025 Legal Mag. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Advertise
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.