The U.S. Supreme Court recently concluded its 2023-2024 term, which included several rulings significantly impacting small businesses and the Main Street economy. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) participated by filing amicus briefs in 12 cases, five of which were decided in favor of small businesses, including a pivotal ruling that overturned Chevron.
“The Supreme Court considered several high-stakes issues this term, especially for the small business community,” said Beth Milito, Executive Director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “Eliminating Chevron deference is a major step in limiting government overreach and providing small business owners with a level playing field to defend their rights. These victories will prevent the damaging effects of extraneous regulatory interference and harmful penalties and will protect the rights of current and future entrepreneurs.”
In "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo," the Court overturned a precedent that had allowed federal agencies to impose stringent regulatory burdens for four decades. The case challenged judicial deference given to an agency’s interpretation of the law, established in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. NFIB's brief argued against this deference, highlighting its negative consequences on agency power. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that courts must independently decide if an agency acted within its statutory authority.
In "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy," the constitutionality of the SEC’s in-house enforcement proceedings was questioned. NFIB filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arguing these actions denied respondents their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit's ruling that these proceedings are unconstitutional.
"Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California" examined whether legislatively-imposed building permit exactions fall under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. A California property owner faced a monetary exaction for road improvements in exchange for a building permit. Lower courts held it was not an unconstitutional condition due to legislative authorization. However, NFIB's brief argued otherwise based on the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed.
In "Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System," the issue was when the six-year statute of limitations to challenge an agency rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) begins. NFIB's brief contended that newly formed entities cannot be injured by an agency’s final rule until they are operationally subject to it. The Court concurred with this perspective.
Lastly, "Starbucks Corporation v. M. Kathleen McKinney" dealt with whether NLRB requests for injunctions under the National Labor Relations Act should follow a traditional four-factor test or a more lenient standard for preliminary injunctions. NFIB's brief argued against extreme deference to NLRB actions affecting small businesses' livelihoods, and the Supreme Court ruled that NLRB must meet stricter preliminary injunction criteria.
The NFIB Small Business Legal Center continues to advocate for small business owners' rights across various courts nationwide.
