Agency power: three different questions

Decisions about administrative agencies can address who interprets the law, how enforcement works or who controls an institution. Those are related questions, but they are not interchangeable.

1. Who determines statutory meaning?

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the Supreme Court overruled Chevron. Courts must exercise independent judgment about statutory authority rather than defer to an agency merely because a statute is ambiguous. The opinion also recognizes the relevance of agency expertise and lawful delegations of discretion.

The distinction matters: a rule about interpreting statutes is not a finding that every agency action is invalid. A responsible reading identifies the statutory question and the particular authority at issue.

2. When must a jury be available?

In FCC v. AT&T (2026), the Court upheld the challenged forfeiture procedure against a Seventh Amendment challenge. Its reasoning depended on the order’s lack of conclusive effect and the availability of a later enforcement trial in which a jury could determine the facts.

Our reading is that the procedural sequence is central. Describing the decision simply as a victory for agency power misses the legal safeguard on which the result depends. Different enforcement structures may present different questions.

3. Who can remove agency leadership?

In Trump v. Slaughter (2026), the Court held the FTC’s statutory for-cause removal protection unconstitutional and overruled the remaining contrary rule of Humphrey’s Executor. The opinion expressly leaves some questions involving other institutions for another day.

This concerns presidential control over officials. It does not itself decide every issue about the content of an agency’s regulations or the procedure used in a particular enforcement action.

Our analysis: precision improves accountability

Public discussion is more useful when a legal development is described at the level at which it operates. Ask what power is at issue, which institution exercises it, what procedure governs its use and what the court actually decided. Then separate the holding from predictions about future practice.

These decisions establish different legal boundaries. The policy consequences also depend on legislative choices, administrative practice and later litigation. Following those developments requires attention to the record over time, rather than assuming that a single ruling settles the entire relationship between courts and agencies.