Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are currently pushing to capitalize on two recent Supreme Court rulings with the aim of dismantling various federal regulations. Their intentions arise from decisions made in *West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency* (2022) and *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* (2023), which they argue have limited the regulatory authority of federal agencies. Following President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement to lead the newly established Department of Government Efficiency, better known as DOGE, Musk and Ramaswamy contend that these judicial decisions provide a foundation for reducing existing federal regulations that they perceive as encumbering economic progress and innovation.
However, legal scholars caution that Musk and Ramaswamy might be misreading the implications of these Supreme Court rulings. Experts have expressed that rather than simplifying the process of repealing regulations, the rulings could create more hurdles. James Broughel, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted that the recent court decisions may not assist in diminishing the existing stock of regulations. He pointed out that the ruling in *Loper Bright* reverses a long-held judicial principle that required courts to grant deference to agency rulemaking when laws are ambiguous. This new standard indicates that courts will now adopt a more scrutinizing approach toward regulatory decisions made by the executive branch.
The implications of the *West Virginia* case are similarly significant, as it has reined in agencies’ abilities to address significant economic and political issues when Congress has not explicitly bestowed such authority upon them. Musk and Ramaswamy argue in an op-ed featured in *The Wall Street Journal* that these cases collectively suggest that many federal regulations exceed the lawful authority granted by Congress. They propose that DOGE will compile a list of such regulations for President Trump, who, through executive action, could halt their enforcement and commence a review process to rescind them entirely. Their vision is to liberate individuals and businesses from what they label as “illicit regulations,” thereby potentially revitalizing the American economy.
Yet, several complications undermine the strategies proposed by the duo. Nicholas Bagley, a professor of administrative law at the University of Michigan, clarified that the relevant cases primarily constrain agency discretion and do not augment executive power to revisit historical regulations. Additionally, federal agencies would need to adhere to an intricate administrative process to revise a regulation which includes issuing a new rule that justifies any changes. This process permits public commentary on proposed regulations and often involves extensive agency resources, potentially extending over several years and facing legal challenges post-finalization.
Richard Pierce Jr., a law professor at George Washington University, emphasized the daunting nature of this undertaking, asserting it is a labor-intensive and challenging process that is likely to flounder in most instances. Moreover, the feasibility of Musk and Ramaswamy’s vision is jeopardized by their proposal to significantly reduce the number of federal employees, who are crucial for reviewing and implementing regulatory changes. These staff members are the very professionals with experience needed to manage regulatory assessments and modifications effectively.
During Donald Trump’s tenure as president, he pledged to execute a significant rollback of regulations. Nonetheless, rather than successfully repealing numerous existing laws, he primarily focused on decelerating the advent of new regulations, as discussed by Broughel. While the Council of Economic Advisers projected that Trump’s deregulatory efforts could yield substantial economic benefits, the actual reduction of existing regulations remained limited.
Despite these discussions, GOP lawmakers retain the ability to utilize the Congressional Review Act to invalidate new regulations established during President Joe Biden’s administration. Notably, such reversal measures are not susceptible to the filibuster, thereby requiring only a simple majority in the Senate. An estimated 100 rules enacted towards the closing stages of Biden’s term could thus be challenged and possibly overturned.
Both Musk, known for his leadership roles at companies such as X (formerly Twitter), Tesla, and SpaceX, along with Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur, have vested interests in regulation cuts that may enhance their expansive business operations. Musk specifically has highlighted in town hall discussions how regulatory constraints impede the swift advancement of his various ventures, including Neuralink, a company dedicated to developing brain-computer interface technologies. His frustrations with the arduous regulatory approval process underscore the economic implications of these policies on innovative enterprises in the United States.
In conclusion, while Musk and Ramaswamy are advocating a grand vision for regulatory changes under Trump’s leadership, a closer examination reveals considerable legal and procedural challenges that may impede their ambitions. The historical context of previous administrative attempts at deregulation may provide insight into the potential difficulties ahead for the duo as they navigate the intricate landscape of federal governance and regulatory reform aimed at spurring economic growth.
