Supreme Court changes agency power in 13 administrative state rulings

By

Lara Bonatesta

Welcome to the Thursday, July 24, 2025, Brew. 

By: Lara Bonatesta

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. Supreme Court changes agency power in 13 administrative state rulings 
  2. New York City voters to decide five measures related to even-year city elections, housing, and infrastructure, in November
  3. On The Ballot examines Nebraska’s unique nonpartisan elections

Supreme Court changes agency power in 13 administrative state rulings 

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its October 2024 term on June 27, 2025.  During the term, the Court decided on a series of cases related to the administrative state. 

The administrative state refers to executive branch agencies at the state and federal levels, staffed by unelected officials. These agencies have the authority to create, interpret, and enforce regulations. Ballotpedia covers the administrative state extensively to help readers understand how agencies use this authority and to stay up-to-date on changes to it.

The Supreme Court issued 13 decisions affecting federal agency operations and oversight. The most notable decisions included:

  1. Narrowing the use of nationwide injunctions
  2. Limiting where companies can file lawsuits to challenge regulations
  3. Making it easier for third parties to challenge agency actions

The court also clarified constitutional boundaries on agency appointments, declined to revive broad nondelegation challenges, and raised the bar for regulatory authority under ambiguous statutes.

Here’s a snapshot of the term’s key administrative state decisions, organized by theme:

Judicial oversight and access

  1. In Trump v. CASA, Inc. (6–3), the Court ruled lower courts exceeded their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against an executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The decision restricts universal injunctions and requires federal courts to limit relief to the plaintiffs before them.
  2. In Williams v. Reed (5–4), the Court held that plaintiffs do not have to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing a civil rights claim if the delays themselves are part of the legal challenge. The decision limits procedural barriers to judicial review and increases access to courts in cases involving alleged rights violations by state agencies.
  3. In Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (8–0), the justices unanimously decided challenges to state-specific EPA actions under the Clean Air Act must occur in regional circuit courts, not the D.C. Circuit. The ruling decentralizes judicial review and strengthens venue limits based on geography.

Other notable cases related to judicial oversight and access included:

Statutory limits and agency power

  1. In Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (7–2), the Court held that fuel producers had standing to challenge the EPA’s waiver allowing California to set its own vehicle emissions standards, based on the regulation’s predicted economic effects. The decision expands access to judicial review for indirectly affected parties in administrative law cases and reflects continued scrutiny of agency authority.
  2. In Bondi v. VanDerStok (7–2), SCOTUS decided the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) has authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to regulate firearm parts kits that can readily be assembled into functional weapons. The ruling affirmed the agency’s interpretation of its statutory authority, signaling judicial deference that contrasted with other decisions.
  3. In FCC v. Consumers’ Research (6–3), the Court upheld Congress’s delegation of authority to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to administer the Universal Service Fund and found no nondelegation violation in the FCC’s use of a private administrator’s projections. The ruling reaffirms the constitutionality of administrative funding structures and does not apply the nondelegation doctrine as a constraint on agency authority.

Other notable cases related to statutory limits and agency power included:

Agency structure and appointments

  1. In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. (6–3), the Supreme Court held that U.S. Preventive Services Task Force members are inferior officers whom the Secretary of Health and Human Services may appoint. The ruling upholds the task force’s structure under the Affordable Care Act and supports executive supervision as a constitutional check on agency personnel.

The Supreme Court issues 67 opinions during its October 2024 term. Click here to learn more. To learn more about the Supreme Court’s recent term and other cases that the Supreme Court may hear over the summer, you can also listen to our recent episode of On The Ballot featuring Zachary Shemtob, Executive Editor of SCOTUSblog.

For more updates on the administrative state, sign up for Ballotpedia’s monthly Checks and Balances newsletter.

New York City voters to decide five measures related to even-year city elections, housing, and infrastructure, in November

On July 21, the New York City Charter Revision Commission voted unanimously to place five charter amendments on the ballot for voters to decide on Nov. 4. Four relate to housing and infrastructure, and the fifth would move city elections from odd to even-numbered years.

The Charter Revision Commission was a temporary 13-member commission that Mayor Eric Adams (D) formed to review the city charter and propose amendments.

Question 5, or the Move City Elections to Even-Numbered Years Charter Amendment, would change city elections for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council members from odd to even-numbered years.

For Question 5 to take effect, voters would also need to approve a statewide constitutional amendment. Article XIII, Section 8 of the New York Constitution requires that all city officials be elected in odd-numbered years. To change this, the state legislature must approve a constitutional amendment—with a simple majority vote in two consecutive legislative sessions—and put it on the statewide ballot for voter approval. The earliest a statewide constitutional amendment could appear on the ballot, due to the two-session requirement, is 2027.

Currently, 39 of the 100 largest cities hold elections in even-numbered years, 38 hold elections in odd-numbered years, and 23 hold elections in both even and odd years. 

New York joins Miami, Florida, as one of those cities considering changing from odd to even-numbered years in 2025. In a previous edition of the Daily Brew, we covered the Miami City Commission’s vote to postpone 2025 elections until 2026. Since then, on July 21, Circuit Court Judge Valerie R. Manno Schurr ruled that the move conflicted with the Miami-Dade County charter and that changing the city’s election date would require a voter referendum

Back to New York. The other four measures on the Nov. 3 ballot include:

  • Question 1: Would create two new public processes for affordable housing. 
  • One would enable the Board of Standards and Appeals to approve publicly financed affordable housing after the affected Community Board reviews it. The other would expedite the land use review process for zoning changes that deliver affordable housing in the 12 community districts with the lowest rate of affordable housing production.
  • Question 2: Would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) for certain land use changes and projects related to affordable housing.
  • Question 3: Would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board, consisting of the Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor, which would have the power to review and reverse decisions by the city council that reject or modify land-use applications that directly facilitate the creation of affordable housing.
  • Question 4: Would require the city to consolidate and digitize the City Map, and replace the existing paper City Map. Currently, the City Map consists of five different sets of maps, one for each borough, totaling over 8,000 individual paper maps. 

Liz Garcia, a spokesperson for Mayor Adams, said, “These are smart proposals that have the potential to speed up affordable housing production, and we encourage New Yorkers to make their voices heard by flipping their ballots and weighing in on these proposals this November.”

A joint statement from the New York City Council read, “This commission’s misguided proposals would undermine the ability to deliver more affordable housing, homeownership opportunities, good-paying union jobs, and neighborhood investments for New Yorkers across the five boroughs.

In addition to these ballot measures, New York City is also holding elections for mayor, comptroller, public advocate, and city council on Nov. 4. Adams, who is running as an independent, will face Zohran Mamdani (D), Curtis Sliwa (R), Andrew Cuomo (Fight and Deliver), and James Walden (I) and four other candidates in the general elections for mayor.

Click here to learn more about local ballot measures in New York this year. 

On The Ballot examines Nebraska’s unique nonpartisan elections

In this week’s new episode of On The Ballot, former Nebraska state Senator Laura Ebke joins Ballotpedia’s Geoff Pallay to discuss Nebraska’s unique relationship with nonpartisan politics and her recent report, in which she found that nonpartisan voter registration is rising in the state.

Nonpartisan elections are elections in which all of the candidates for an office are listed on the ballot without party labels identifying any of their political parties. Partisan elections are elections for which the ballot contains labels showing the parties with which candidates are affiliated.

Nonpartisan elections are common among municipal and county offices as judicial elections. Nebraska is the only state that elects its state legislators through nonpartisan elections. It is also the only state with a unicameral legislature, or a legislature with only one chamber.

In 1934, Nebraska voters approved a constitutional amendment establishing its nonpartisan, unicameral legislature with 30 to 50 members. The vote was 59.7%-40.3%. Before the amendment, Nebraska had a bicameral legislature. The new unicameral legislature met for the first time in 1937. 

Click here to listen to the episode.

Subscribe to On the Ballot on YouTube or your preferred podcast app, or click here to listen to more episodes.