Leading lawyers and scholars examine the Supreme Court’s major regulatory decisions from its recent term.
A group of scholars from the University of Pennsylvania have taken the lead in providing valuable analysis of the Supreme Court’s major regulatory decisions from its recently completed term. An essay series entitled “The Supreme Court’s 2022-2023 Regulatory Term” recently appeared in The Regulatory Review and comprises nine essays authored by legal scholars from Penn and other leading universities.
The series focuses on the Court’s significant rulings on important administrative and regulatory law issues, including student loan forgiveness, racial diversity in college admissions, and the authority of agencies to make regulatory decisions. In addition, the essays delve into the Court’s broader approach to administrative governance and its potential implications for the future of regulatory authority.
Cary Coglianese, the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Political Science and founding director of the Penn Program on Regulation, emphasized the series’ purpose to provide a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of the Court’s regulatory decisions.
“The Supreme Court plays a critical role in shaping the regulatory landscape,” Coglianese said. “These essays provide a valuable lens for understanding the Court’s evolving approach to regulation, and its implications for the future.”
The Regulatory Review is a student-run online daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation that features regulatory news, opinion, and analysis, attracting readers from over 185 countries. The Supreme Court series stems from the work of Editor in Chief Bryn Hines L’24, Managing Editor Jackson Nichols L’24, and the Executive Editor team of Katie Cohen L’24, MBE’24; Tori Hawekotte L’24, G’24; Nabil Shaikh L’24; and Riann Winget C’17, L’24.
The Collaborative Nature of the Series
“The Supreme Court’s 2022-2023 Regulatory Term” is notable for its collaborative nature. Six out of the nine essays in the series are written by Penn-affiliated scholars, and the publication is edited by entirely by Penn Carey Law students under the guidance of Coglianese, who serves as the faculty advisor to The Regulatory Review. This collaborative project reflects the deep expertise in regulation that exists at Penn, and it also highlights Penn Carey Law’s well-known reputation for collegiality and interdisciplinary approaches to law.
The essays featured in the series incorporate a wide range of scholarship and perspectives, reflecting the diversity of The Regulatory Review, which brings together scholars from law, political science, economics, and other disciplines to analyze issues of regulatory law and policy. This collaborative approach is crucial in comprehending the complexities and multidisciplinary nature of regulation.
“The series is a testament to the collegiality, diversity, and intellectual heft that exists at Penn Carey Law as well as at the Penn Program on Regulation,” said Coglianese. “This timely round of scholarship on the Supreme Court, produced by the exceptionally talented students who publish The Regulatory Review, not only informs meaningful discussion in the public square and throughout legal circles—it also demonstrates the collaborative intellectual culture that prevails at Penn Carey Law.”
Coglianese noted that, in addition to the distinctive student-faculty collaboration that underlies everything that The Regulatory Review does, the Penn contributors to this year’s Supreme Court series came from across the faculty.
“This series features highly insightful and important contributions from members of our standing faculty, our clinical faculty, our adjunct faculty, our visiting faculty, and our wider Penn faculty community,” he said. “Plus, one of the essays was even co-authored by one of our students.”
Crawford Schneider L’24, said he was honored to co-author an essay published in the series. “To see my name with some of the foremost scholars in the country was amazing.”
The essays published in The Regulatory Review series provide a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of the Court’s most recent regulatory decisions, and they offer valuable insights into the future of the regulatory state. We encourage readers to explore all the essays below.
Penn Contributions to the Supreme Court Series
Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor in the Legal Studies & Business Ethics Department at The Wharton School
The Supreme Court affirms social media companies’ business models, dodging for now the issue of liability for harmful speech.
Michael Knoll, Theodore K. Warner Professor of Law and Professor of Real Estate and Co-Director of the Center for Tax Law and Policy at Penn Carey Law, and Ruth Mason, University of Virginia Law School
The Supreme Court narrowly rejects a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a California pork law.
Cara McClellan GEd’12, Director of the Advocacy for Racial and Civil Justice Clinic and Associate Practice Professor of Law at Penn Carey Law
The Supreme Court has severely limited more than 45 years of precedent holding it constitutional for colleges and universities to consider race in admissions.
Matthew Wiener, Lecturer in Law at Penn Carey Law and former Acting Chair and Vice Chair of the Administrative Conference of the United States
The Supreme Court grants district-court jurisdiction in an opinion hampering agencies’ adjudicatory authority.
Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School and Visiting Professor at Penn Carey Law during the Spring 2023 semester, and Crawford Schneider L’24, Penn Carey Law
In Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court again asserts its own authority to make society’s most important policy choices.
Tobias Barrington Wolff, the Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law and Deputy Dean for Equity & Inclusion at Penn Carey Law
The Supreme Court undercut antidiscrimination law in a case where the key issues were stipulated by the parties, leaving lower courts little guidance in how to apply its ruling.
Additional Contributions to The Regulatory Review’s Supreme Court Series
Robyn M. Powell, University of Oklahoma College of Law
The Court opens a new avenue for redress for disabled students seeking an equitable education.
Monika U. Ehrman, Southern Methodist University School of Law, and Robin Kundis Craig, USC Gould School of Law
EPA’s regulatory authority is limited by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “waters of the United States.”
Ronald Levin, Washington University School of Law
The U.S. Supreme Court holds that states lack standing to challenge immigration prioritization guidelines.