Penn faculty perspectives on the Supreme Court’s 2018 regulatory cases
During its recently concluded term, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down decisions that touched on a wide range of pressing regulatory and administrative law questions. The topics addressed by the Court included those involving public unions, state gambling laws, e-commerce taxes, and the use of presidential authority to control immigration.
“The Court took up a strikingly large number of important regulatory cases this term,” noted Cary Coglianese, director of the Penn Program on Regulation. “This series of essays in The Regulatory Review demonstrates the significant impact these cases will have on the administrative and regulatory world.”
In this series, The Regulatory Review presents numerous essays by leading legal scholars and practitioners commenting on the Court’s most significant regulatory decisions from this past term. Below, Penn faculty offer their insights about the Court’s most important regulatory decisions of the past term.
Penn Law Faculty
Michael Knoll, University of Pennsylvania Law School
South Dakota v. Wayfair is not so much the end of the story as it is the opening of a new chapter in the long-running saga of state efforts to collect sales taxes on goods purchased from out-of-state sellers.
Sarah Paoletti, University of Pennsylvania Law School
At present, the federal government detains almost 360,000 immigrants a year. The Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings finds detainees’ choice between fighting and facing indefinite detention or giving up all claims for relief to be acceptable under current immigration law.
Tobias B. Wolff, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Although the principle of religious neutrality in government is well established, the standard that the Court applied to the record before the Colorado commission was remarkable. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission may wind up shaping the way that we measure impermissible bias in the business of government.
Adjunct and other Penn Faculty
Sean Burke, University of Pennsylvania
In Janus, the Court singled out agency fees for special treatment under the First Amendment and few people, least of all the litigants, seem to doubt the decision will do unions real harm.
Eric G. Fikry, Blank Rome LLP
The expansion of sports wagering after Murphy v. NCAA will undoubtedly impact not only casinos, racetracks, and sports pool operators, but also a wide variety of technology and financial industry companies that will play roles in the development of online and mobile sports wagering applications.
David Zaring, The Wharton School
The impact of the Lucia v. SEC decision will not be dramatic, though it is yet another example where a separation of powers argument “worked,” even if the remedies provided to plaintiffs who successfully raise separation of powers claims are modest.
To read the entire Regulatory Review series and commentary from other analysts go to: https://www.theregreview.org/2018/07/09/supreme-courts-2018-regulatory-term/.