A year after Loper Bright, Congress has failed to step up
One year after the Supreme Court ended judicial deference to federal agencies in its landmark Loper Bright decision, Congress shows no sign of stepping up to the constitutional role the court affirmed.
Instead, Congress is actively dismantling its own capacity: proposing deep cuts to the very institutions that provide the expertise, oversight and support it needs to do the job that the court squarely placed in the first branch of government.
The absurdity of this mismatch was crystallized in a remarkable confluence of events this week. In one House hearing room, the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party held a hearing on 'Algorithms and Authoritarians: Why US AI Must Lead,' grappling with complex issues of geopolitical and existential import.
That same day, the House Appropriations Committee released a bill proposing to slash funding for the very experts Congress relies on to understand and address these emerging issues. The bill would cut the Government Accountability Office by 50 percent and the Library of Congress (home to the Congressional Research Service) by 10 percent. These cuts would eliminate over 1,000 expert positions at the exact moment Congress needs them most.
Loper Bright overturned the 'Chevron doctrine,' under which for four decades courts deferred to agency interpretations of laws considered ambiguous. Many champions of the old doctrine argued that Congress could never possess the expertise to legislate with sufficient speed or clarity to address emerging issues. As Justice Elena Kagan put it during oral argument, 'Congress knows there are going to be gaps [in any future artificial intelligence legislation] because Congress can hardly see a week into the future with respect to' AI.
The court's majority rejected that argument and clarified that the Constitution places the lawmaking responsibility squarely with Congress, whether it likes it or not. And if Congress doesn't step up, the courts will decide.
But one year after Loper Bright, those initial doubts appear well-founded.
In the first six months after Loper Bright was decided, lower courts cited the decision more than 400 times. Rules on everything from firearm bump stocks to environmental permitting are being invalidated or reopened, but Congress has taken no meaningful steps to review or update those laws and is now actively undermining its ability to do so in the future.
Congress is now expected to legislate with greater precision, define agency authority more explicitly and ensure that statutes are interpretable, enforceable and implementable. That requires subject-matter expertise, rigorous oversight and modern legislative infrastructure. But rather than invest in those capabilities, Congress is defunding them.
This is more than just poor timing. It is a structural failure to respond to the new legal environment and to the most significant change driver of our time: artificial intelligence. Across the economy, AI is being deployed to write code, analyze documents, simulate regulations and accelerate research. Meanwhile, in Congress, AI is treated primarily as a risk to manage — not a capability to leverage.
The House Appropriations Committee, to its credit, acknowledges the potential of artificial intelligence. In its Financial Year 2025 report, it highlighted the value of large language models to improve legislative efficiency and encouraged collaboration between GAO, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office and the Library of Congress.
But those same agencies are being gutted. The rhetoric of innovation is paired with budgets that eliminate the very expertise required to realize it — the policy equivalent of demanding a sports car while removing the engine.
Loper Bright didn't just shift legal doctrine — it shifted responsibility. If lawmakers want regulations to stand, they must write clearer laws. If they want policy outcomes, they must legislate them. And if they want to govern effectively in an age of accelerated change, they must modernize how they work.
To be serious about reclaiming its constitutional role, Congress must start by rebuilding its own capacity. That means restoring funding for expert support agencies; hiring and retaining policy staff with legal, scientific and technical knowledge; and modernizing legislative technology and workflows. And yes — it means using AI to improve research, workflows and constituent engagement, so Congress can function in an era of exponential change.
The Supreme Court made clear that the pen is (and always has been) in Congress's hands. The question now isn't whether Congress has the authority, but whether it will invest in the tools and talent to use it.
Marci Harris is founder and CEO of POPVOX.com and the executive director of the nonprofit POPVOX Foundation. She is a lawyer and former congressional staffer.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
42 minutes ago
- Politico
Millions of students could lose federal aid under a proposal to slash Pell Grants
College presidents are rallying behind Senate Republicans in a bid to stave off megabill cuts to a program that helps more than 6 million low- and middle-income students pay for school. To help avert a $2.7 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program later this year, the House's version of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' advanced tighter eligibility rules that alarmed educators. The changes, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could kick nearly 10 percent of Pell recipients off the award and shrink the amount of money most participants receive. Those numbers are driving college leaders — many already facing threats of Trump-driven funding cuts, new endowment taxes and limits on international students — to support the Senate's less-restrictive take on the popular bipartisan program. Mark Brown, a former Trump Education Department official who is now president of Alabama's Tuskegee University, told senators last month that Pell reductions proposed by the House would push students to take out more loans. And some of the nation's largest university systems, like California State University and California Community Colleges, have called the restrictions an 'existential threat.' 'This is a difference between some of those students either coming to our universities or tech colleges or not,' said Jay Rothman, president of the Universities of Wisconsin, whose 13 campuses have roughly 31,600 Pell Grant recipients. Republicans in both chambers are under tremendous pressure from party bosses to find savings that help offset Trump's $4 trillion in broader tax cuts. But higher education leaders across the nation say the House GOP's plans would imperil college access for working students and contend that their institutions can't make up for the loss of federal financial aid. 'There are going to be some students who have the ability and have the passion and have the desire, but will not have the financial means to attend our universities. And there will be students that will not get the benefit of that higher education because of these reductions,' Rothman said. During the 2024-25 award year, the maximum Pell Grant was $7,395, which is determined based on income, family size, federal poverty guidelines and other factors. The House-passed 'big, beautiful bill' would require students to increase their course load from 24 credit hours a year to 30 each year to be eligible for the maximum amount of the grant. Most students would likely have to take 15 credits per semester instead of 12 to get the full award, though students could take summer courses to meet the full-time requirements. The bill also includes language that would bar students enrolled less than half-time from the grant. But the Senate has proposed scaling back the lower chamber's dramatic changes to the grant, and appears to be sticking with its Pell plans in the chamber's latest legislative text. The upper chamber's plan would deem students ineligible for the grant if they receive federal, state, institutional or private aid that covers the full cost of attendance, something campus leaders and advocates deem more favorable. Education Chair Bill Cassidy's proposal strips the full-time definition and half-time language from the panel's portion of the reconciliation bill, to the disgruntlement of some House leaders. 'I'm not OK with it,' said House Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg, whose panel is responsible for the lower chamber's Pell proposal. 'But we learned that we have to deal with reality. We know that we have to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill.' Walberg said he hasn't seen anything in the Senate's proposal that would be a deal breaker but worries about the long-term sustainability of the grant. Pell's estimated shortfall could balloon up to $10 billion by the end of fiscal 2026. Both the House and Senate proposals include funding to address the shortfall, but Walberg has said his proposed changes to eligibility would help rein in annual spending on Pell and help stave off another deficit. 'We thought it was very realistic,' the Michigan Republican said. 'The issue is, if we're going to pay for the shortfall that's going to be in Pell, we have to make sure that we have students that are finishing up, completing an education and moving on.' But some institutions are discouraging students from taking heavy course loads, saying student performance goes down the more classes they take, especially if they have obligations outside of school. 'We actually advise them to take 12, not 15, so that they will do well. Fifteen credits is far too many,' Trinity Washington University President Patricia McGuire said. 'That is such a heavy, heavy academic load for students who are normally working. Also, many of them are raising their own children, many of them have family circumstances that are very stressful. Congress, in addition to not understanding how education works, have no concept of the lives of low-income students.' McGuire, who has headed the D.C. university for over 30 years, said 60 to 70 percent of her nearly 2,000 students are Pell recipients. 'If this goes through, we will go out, and we will make the case directly to donors: Can you help us to close this new gap that the government has created?' she said. 'But that also seems like we shouldn't have to do that.' Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a HELP Committee member, said he just wants the reconciliation bill's education proposals to be 'right in the end' when asked about the House Pell plans. 'Education is hugely important,' he said. Pell eligibility changes, if they become law, could be much more acute for community colleges, where students are often part-time. 'At community colleges, we're about careers, we're about jobs, we're about getting people into the workforce and if they can't afford to access the education, then we certainly can't get them into the workforce,' Forsyth Technical Community College President Janet Spriggs said.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Weekend Law: Final SCOTUS Decisions & Dogs Are Family
Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the Supreme Court limiting judge's use of nationwide injunctions. First Amendment law expert Caroline Mala Corbin, discusses the Supreme Court bolstering the rights of religious parents. Christopher Berry, the Executive Director of the Nonhuman Rights Project, discusses a New York judge ruling that dogs are part of the family. June Grasso hosts.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Louisiana hospitals warn Mike Johnson of 'devastation' from megabill
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
