SCOTUS, Regulatory Interpretation, the Chevron Deference Doctrine, and the Right to a Jury Trial

NCBA Legal Learning Webinar

Thursday, July 11, 2024
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM (EDT)
Category: Webinars

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Learn from our panel of legal experts, Manny Newburger, Joann Needleman, and Leslie Bender, how the Court addressed the scope of the Chevron deference doctrine which previously required courts to defer to “permissible” agency interpretations of statutes, even when the court interpreted the statute differently. In this ruling, the Court overruled Chevron, emphasizing that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) mandates that courts exercise independent judgment when assessing an agency’s statutory authority.

Sponsored by:

Provana Logo

Another significant case, SEC v. Jarkesy, decided by SCOTUS just the day before on June 27, 2024, found that when the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. As a result, the SEC must bring such actions in federal court. Jarkesy suggests that regulatory civil penalties must be pursued either in federal court, or not at all. Entities facing regulatory penalties may now have a powerful argument to assert their jury trial rights in the face of threatened enforcement action. It may be additionally argued that agencies who lack authority to proceed in federal court are constitutionally precluded from levying any civil monetary penalty.

The rulings in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and SEC v. Jarkesy will impact financial regulatory agencies—including the CFPB—and creditors rights practitioners. In this NCBA Legal Learning Webinar, our panelists will discuss potential impacts, specific details, and how the consequences of these rulings may vary by practice area.

Webinar learning objectives include:

  1. Increased challenges to new rulemakings: ​While regulators will still be able to issue regulatory interpretations, courts may be less inclined to defer to agency expertise when assessing the legality of these interpretations.​ Learn how this could lead to more industry challenges to regulatory agencies in court.
  2. More uncertainty in financial services law: Litigation can take years to resolve, and differing conclusions from various federal circuit courts of appeals could create circuit splits. ​ Learn how different courts may reach different conclusions on the legality of the same regulation, leading to inconsistency and confusion in the banking industry. ​
  3. Potential scaling back or rescinding of existing regulations: Learn how this ruling could potentially lead to the scaling back or rescinding of existing regulations. ​ ​This could result in a significant impact on the regulatory landscape for financial institutions and services.
  4. Slower rulemaking process: Learn how the added layers of internal legal review could delay the implementation of new rules and hinder the ability of financial regulators to promptly address issues relating to emerging technologies or current events without explicit congressional authorization. ​
  5. Shift in policymaking power: Learn how this ruling shifts policymaking power away from financial regulators and towards Congressional committees. ​This could impact the decision-making process and the direction of financial regulation. 

CLE is pending for this webinar.

CLE Information

National Creditors Bar Association is a national provider of legal educational content. NCBA’s goal is to provide its members with as many opportunities as possible to earn Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits. Some NCBA webinars state that they are pending approval. If a webinar is pending approval, it means that NCBA’s education staff is awaiting confirmation of approval for CLE credit from the accrediting body of a particular state; it should be noted that individual states have different response and approval rates. NCBA expects that the course will be approved for the credit amount and type listed, but approval is not guaranteed. An attorney can still take the course at their own discretion, though.

It is not uncommon for a course which is pending approval to not be approved until after the webinar has taken place. Once an official decision notice arrives from the state, NCBA will notify attorneys who have completed the course as soon as possible via email, and will re-issue any certificates of completion to reflect the updated state reporting numbers. However, it is recommended that attorneys do not view webinars that are pending approval close to their CLE deadline, as NCBA cannot guarantee that a course will be approved in time.

National Creditors Bar Association will seek MCLE accreditation, with the assistance of the ABA MCLE, for this webinar. NCBA will seek General CLE credit hours in 60-minute-hour states, and in 50-minute states, subject to each state’s approval and credit rounding rules. States typically decide whether a program qualifies for MCLE credit in their jurisdiction 4-8 weeks after the program application is submitted. For many live events, credit approval is not received prior to the program. A link for CLE requests will be provided to webinar attendees who have met the attendance and engagement requirements.