On April 9, the White House issued a memorandum directing federal executive departments and agencies to repeal regulations deemed unlawful pursuant to certain U.S. Supreme Court decisions. This directive aims to address regulatory barriers that the Trump administration believes hinder economic growth and innovation. The memorandum implements Executive Order 14219, issued on February 19, 2025, which ordered the heads of all federal agencies to identify unlawful and potentially unlawful regulations within 60 days and begin plans to repeal them. Now, the administration is directing agencies to prioritize that review under 10 watershed Supreme Court cases, and to repeal regulations that are considered unlawful under those cases without public notice and comment, if possible.
The memorandum references 10 select Supreme Court decisions that have redefined the constitutional boundaries of regulatory authority. The memorandum states that “despite these critical course corrections, unlawful regulations — often promulgated in reliance on now-superseded Supreme Court decisions — remain on the books.” These 10 decisions are intended to serve as a framework for federal agencies to evaluate the lawfulness of existing regulations. The memorandum specifically cites to the following cases:
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024): Eliminating the requirement that courts must defer to agency interpretations of the federal laws they administer.
- West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022): Holding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act to impose emissions reductions by shifting electricity production from higher-emitting to lower-emitting sources.
- SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024): Holding that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
- Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015): Holding that the EPA must consider economic costs when deciding how to regulate power plants under the Clean Air Act.
- Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023). Holding that the Clean Water Act only extends to wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a “continuous surface connection” to “traditional interstate navigable waters.”
- Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024): Staying the EPA’s federal emissions reduction rule because the applicants were likely to succeed in arguing that it was arbitrary or capricious under the Clean Air Act.
- Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021): Holding that a California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se physical taking.
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023): Holding that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022). Holding that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
- Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020): Holding that a preliminary injunction was warranted given the likelihood of success on the merits in a case alleging Covid-19 restrictions violated a “minimum requirement of neutrality” by specifically naming religious entities for restrictions while allowing secular businesses categorized as “essential.”
According to the memorandum, following the 60-day review period mandated by Executive Order 14219, federal agencies are instructed to immediately take steps to repeal any regulation, or portion of any regulation, that clearly exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or is otherwise unlawful. The directive emphasizes the use of the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedure Act to expedite the repeal process without notice and comment when it is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
Within 30 days after the conclusion of the review period, federal agencies are required to submit a one-page summary of each regulation that was initially identified as falling within one of the categories specified in section 2(a) of Executive Order 14219 to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This summary is required to explain each regulation identified as potentially unlawful but not targeted for repeal, along with the rationale for the decision not to repeal it.
