April 9, 2025 Directing The Repeal Of Unlawful Regulations - Memoranda
- Fact Seeker
- Jul 27
- 3 min read
Memorandum Overview
The memorandum directs agency heads to repeal federal regulations that are now unlawful, particularly those relying on Supreme Court precedent that has since been overruled or limited. It complements Executive Order 14219 issued on February 19, 2025, which ordered agencies to identify regulations for potential repeal within 60 days.
Key points:
The memo cites ten specific Supreme Court cases that have redefined boundaries on agency authority.
Agencies may repeal facially unlawful regulations without notice-and-comment, invoking the “good cause” exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Repeals must be accompanied by a brief explanation demonstrating why notice and comment is unnecessary.
Within 30 days of completing the review, agencies must submit a one-page summary for any regulation identified but not repealed, explaining the justification.
Supreme Court Decisions to Guide Agency Review
1. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
Overruled the over-40-year precedent of Chevron deference, ruling that courts must independently interpret agency authority rather than defer to agency interpretations (https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/white-house-issues-memorandum-directing-2295499/) (https://www.blankrome.com/publications/deregulation-memo-presents-risks-opportunities-cos) (https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/).
Impact: Weakens agency power to justify regulations under ambiguous statutes.
2. West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
Held that EPA lacked clear Congressional authorization to enforce generation‑shifting rules for existing power plants under the Clean Air Act’s § 7411(d)—a use-that exceeds its statutory authority under the “major questions doctrine”(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA).
Impact: Limits EPA’s reach in regulating greenhouse gas emissions absent explicit statutory mandates.
3. SEC v. Jarkesy (2024)
Ruled that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial in federal court; administrative law judge proceedings cannot substitute (https://www.wired.com/story/the-supreme-court-is-jeopardizing-federal-climate-action) (https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/jurys-not-out-supreme-courts-jarkesy-decision-limits-secs-use-administrative-2024-07-18/).
Impact: Restricts SEC’s use of internal tribunals and administrative enforcement proceedings.
4. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Held that EPA acted unreasonably by not considering costs when regulating power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-46).
5. Sackett v. EPA (2023)
Clarified the limits of the Clean Water Act, ruling that narrow definitions of “waters of the United States” significantly reduce wetland protections (https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-you-need-know-about-sackett-v-epa).
6. Ohio v. EPA (2024)
(Detailed summary not available in data, but referenced as one of the ten priorities.) It notably limited EPA's ability to regulate emissions beyond source-specific controls.
7. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021)
Held that a California regulation granting union organizers access to private property constituted a Takings Clause violation requiring just compensation.
8. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)
Declared that race-based university admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, overturning college affirmative action in admissions.
9. Carson v. Makin (2022)
Ruled Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from a tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause, requiring religious inclusion.
10. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020)
Held that New York restrictions on religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic impermissibly infringed on religious exercise, even under a public health justification (https://www.wiley.law/alert-Trump-Directs-Agencies-to-Quickly-Repeal-Unlawful-Regulations-Without-Notice-and-Comment).
Implications for Regulatory Reform
These decisions collectively narrowed agency discretion, reinforced constitutional checks, and clarified limits on federal regulatory authority.
The memorandum instructs agencies to prioritize rescission of regulations inconsistent with these rulings to restore legal correctness and reduce burdens on businesses and consumers.
Use of the APA “good cause” exception permits immediate repeal of facially invalid regulations without lengthy procedures—justified as serving the public interest and complying with Supreme Court rulings.
Summary Table
Supreme Court Case | Key Holding | Implication for Agencies |
Loper Bright v. Raimondo | Rejected Chevron deference | Agencies must justify statutes; fewer ambiguous interpretations allowed |
West Virginia v. EPA | EPA can't enforce generation-shifting emissions rules | EPA must operate within clearly authorized scope |
SEC v. Jarkesy | Jury trial required for SEC fraud penalties | SEC must shift civil penalty enforcement to federal courts |
Michigan v. EPA | EPA must consider compliance costs | Regulatory cost-benefit analysis required |
Sackett v. EPA | Narrowed Clean Water Act protections | EPA regulatory reach over wetlands reduced |
Ohio v. EPA | Limits on emissions regulation authority | EPA must reassess rules extending beyond source-based control |
Cedar Point v. Hassid | Access regulation violated Takings Clause | Property rights constrained regulatory growth |
Students for Fair Admissions | Rejected race-based admissions | Agencies must align civil rights regulations accordingly |
Carson v. Makin | Free exercise requires equal treatment | Ensure funding policies comply with religious freedom rights |
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo | Public health orders can't target religious gatherings | Agencies must avoid religious content-based restrictions |
Writer's Note: Summary made with the use of AI tools for editing and quick processing, facts checked against the order before publishing.
Comments