Delivered to our subscribers on Saturdays, the Weekly Spotlight is a roundup of POGO's latest work and announcements. Sign up to get this newsletter delivered to your inbox.
The Supreme Court’s new term started in early October. As has been the case in recent terms, there are several highly consequential cases on the docket, a few of which we’re paying especially close attention to.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could overturn the Chevron precedent, which currently protects federal agencies’ power to regulate corporations. In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, the justices are questioning whether the current funding structure of the bureau — an independent watchdog responsible for protecting consumer financial interests — is constitutional. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP will have the justices considering racial gerrymandering. And Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. will decide whether Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, will remain liable in the future for settlement claims for opioid epidemic victims if the company files for bankruptcy.
Many of these cases pit the interests of corporations against the interests of the public and they’re being heard by what some have called the most business-friendly Supreme Court ever.
Currently, the justices have unfettered control over the cases they hear, essentially allowing them to set their own agenda. Recent dockets have shed light on the need for the reallocation of that agenda-setting power, which we’ve written about in the past.
The Camp Lejeune Justice Act promised aid to Marines and families harmed by the base’s water. Over a year later, many claims are stuck in limbo.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
“We have [the] AI [industry] inserting its staffers into Congress to potentially write new laws and regulations around this emerging field. … That is a conflict of interest.”
Tim Stretton, Director of the Congressional Oversight Initiative, in Politico