The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is bad news for tech regulation, too

The justices just gave themselves a lot of discretion to smack down agency rules.

An exterior view of the Supreme Court.

The ruling could also endanger work on competition issues by the FTC and net neutrality by the FCC.

Photo: Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s decision last week gutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions didn’t just signal the conservative justices’ dislike of the Clean Air Act at a moment of climate crisis. It also served as a warning for anyone that would like to see more regulation of Big Tech.

At the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in West Virginia v. EPA was a codification of the “major questions doctrine,” which, he wrote, requires “clear congressional authorization” when agencies want to regulate on areas of great “economic and political significance.”

That ruling could go far beyond environmental regulation, particularly as the court gave few guidelines about what constitutes a “major question” — thus giving themselves plenty of room in the future to apply the notion broadly, even in some instances when Congress would prefer expert agencies take up particular issues.

“It’s, in effect, a political veto that the Supreme Court has over Congress,” said Jeffrey Vagle, an assistant professor at Georgia State University's law school who specializes in tech issues. “The court is saying, ‘We decide what is and is not a major question.’”

Experts say the justices’ decision could endanger potential efforts at the Federal Trade Commission to make rules on competition issues, efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to restore net neutrality or a potential range of new regulations on platform tech, crypto, markets and other areas.

The ruling comes at a fraught time for regulation, particularly in newer sectors like tech. Federal courts, especially those led by conservative judges who have long fought bureaucrats issuing rules to govern businesses, are increasingly taking aim at agencies’ structures and powers. At the same time, some of those same agencies are trying to reinvigorate their authority — or in some cases explicitly test the boundaries of the law — in an effort to protect consumers in fast-evolving sectors where Congress has asked the experts to take the lead. Lawmakers themselves are also considering granting agencies more powers.

Take the FTC, for example. Chair Lina Khan rose to prominence through criticizing what she portrayed as a narrow view by courts and prior commissioners of the agency’s purpose, and she has pledged to bring big cases, try out new legal theories and invoke powers her predecessors had stepped away from. In addition to bringing cases against alleged one-off lawbreakers, Khan’s efforts also include ambitions to regulate whole sectors and practices.

The FTC relies on broad, but often vague, statutes designed to give the agency the power to tackle anticompetitive conduct and deception throughout the economy. Several experts said the Supreme Court’s ruling could affect the FTC’s potential plans to use the law under which it operates to issue regulations on “unfair methods of competition.”

“The court is saying, ‘We decide what is and is not a major question.’”

“It’s really hard to see, looking at this opinion, how this court is going to uphold this claim of authority,” Berin Szoka, president of libertarian think tank TechFreedom, said about the case during a Twitter Spaces event. Szoka pointed to non-compete agreements as a potential subject for a competition-related rule-making, although the FTC’s signature regulatory push on tech right now is privacy, which might rely on a separate authority to regulate “unfair or deceptive acts.”

Regardless of whether Khan’s privacy rule-making would succeed in court, a bipartisan, bicameral bill would direct the FTC to make regulations on all kinds of new tech topics. Given the ruling, lawmakers do need to be as clear as possible in assigning rule-making responsibilities to agencies, though it’s not obvious how such grants need to be written to be considered clear enough statements of agency authority for the Supreme Court.

Similar dynamics are playing out at the FCC with net neutrality. Democrats seem intent on restoring rules to stop ISPs from blocking web content, slowing it down or demanding pay for prioritizing it — at least if Democrats can fill the fifth seat on the commission and actually take over the majority. But Szoka’s group has long maintained such rules constitute a major question beyond the remit of the statutes the FCC applies — a stance that Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to agree with when he was an appeals court judge.

In fact, Roberts, in his EPA decision, quoted Kavanaugh’s earlier writings on net neutrality. Matt Schettenhelm, a litigation and policy analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence who focuses on telecom, called the citation “devastating to the FCC, federal broadband regulation, and net neutrality.”

It may be what the decision doesn’t say that most threatens future regulations.

The Supreme Court decision stopped short of explicitly overturning the deference that courts are supposed to show to expert agencies when interpreting statutes the regulators oversee. The court also held back from the theory that, in many cases under the Constitution, Congress simply can’t delegate its powers to administrative agencies, whether lawmakers are clear or not. Such a holding would have reached back to a series of anti-New Deal rulings, and some liberal legal observers saw it as a possible worst-case scenario for the administrative state because it would have fundamentally crippled and remade the entire structure of the modern federal government.

Still, experts say the EPA ruling could act as something of a trapdoor, allowing the justices to reach similarly anti-regulatory conclusions in the future without having to tackle those larger questions. In his opinion, for instance, Roberts cast suspicion on agency powers that, like many of the authorities the FTC is trying to reclaim, “had rarely been used in the preceding decades.” He also suggested regulators’ new interpretation of a statute may just be a “discovery” of a power that doesn’t truly exist. In addition, he put a target on rules that accomplish things Congress has declined — or been unable — to achieve.

It may be what the decision doesn’t say, however, that most threatens future regulations, said Vagle. The decision failed to lay out some very basic definitions — for instance, failing to include how much economic significance is too much and how specific lawmakers’ permission for regulation needs to be. With few hints at how the court might define those issues, Vagle said, the decision leaves a lot of room for the justices to invoke the major questions doctrine in the future and strike down regulations simply because they dislike the rules.

“[Roberts] says, in effect, ‘We know it when we see it,’” Vagle said. “It’s really in the eye of the beholder.”


Upstart has a new plan to sell Wall Street on its loans

The AI-powered lender will hold some loans on its balance sheet as it seeks partners for long-term capital.

Despite the current struggles, Upstart views the marketplace model as the best way to write to keep its loan business growing.

Photo: Upstart

After a revenue drop its CEO called “unacceptable,” the leadership at fintech lender Upstart is making a bet on the strength of its ability to underwrite loans with AI.

The San Mateo company is planning to leave some loans on its balance sheet that investors do not want to buy, as concerns about the economy shift Wall Street away from backing riskier consumer debt. Rather than pull back on its lending in response, the company said it will hold some loans as it seeks longer-term capital partners.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.
Sponsored Content

How cybercrime is going small time

Blockbuster hacks are no longer the norm – causing problems for companies trying to track down small-scale crime

Cybercrime is often thought of on a relatively large scale. Massive breaches lead to painful financial losses, bankrupting companies and causing untold embarrassment, splashed across the front pages of news websites worldwide. That’s unsurprising: cyber events typically cost businesses around $200,000, according to cybersecurity firm the Cyentia Institute. One in 10 of those victims suffer losses of more than $20 million, with some reaching $100 million or more.

That’s big money – but there’s plenty of loot out there for cybercriminals willing to aim lower. In 2021, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received 847,376 complaints – reports by cybercrime victims – totaling losses of $6.9 billion. Averaged out, each victim lost $8,143.

Keep Reading Show less
Chris Stokel-Walker

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of "YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars." His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.


Does your boss sound a little funny? It might be an audio deepfake

Voice deepfake attacks against enterprises, often aimed at tricking corporate employees into transferring money to the attackers, are on the rise. And at least in some cases, they’re succeeding.

Audio deepfakes are a new spin on the impersonation tactics that have long been used in social engineering and phishing attacks, but most people aren’t trained to disbelieve their ears.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

As a cyberattack investigator, Nick Giacopuzzi’s work now includes responding to growing attacks against businesses that involve deepfaked voices — and has ultimately left him convinced that in today's world, "we need to question everything."

In particular, Giacopuzzi has investigated multiple incidents where an attacker deployed fabricated audio, created with the help of AI, that purported to be an executive or a manager at a company. You can guess how it went: The fake boss asked an employee to urgently transfer funds. And in some cases, it’s worked, he said.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.


Binance’s co-founder could remake its crypto deal-making

Yi He is overseeing a $7.5 billion portfolio, with more investments to come, making her one of the most powerful investors in the industry.

Binance co-founder Yi He will oversee $7.5 billion in assets.

Photo: Binance

Binance co-founder Yi He isn’t as well known as the crypto giant’s colorful and controversial CEO, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao.

That could soon change. The 35-year-old executive is taking on a new, higher-profile role at the world’s largest crypto exchange as head of Binance Labs, the company’s venture capital arm. With $7.5 billion in assets to oversee, that instantly makes her one of the most powerful VC investors in crypto.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


Trump ordered social media visa screening. Biden's defending it.

The Knight First Amendment Institute just lost a battle to force the Biden administration to provide a report on the collection of social media handles from millions of visa applicants every year.

Visa applicants have to give up any of their social media handles from the past five years.

Photo: belterz/Getty Images

Would you feel comfortable if a U.S. immigration official reviewed all that you post on Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter or even YouTube? Would it change what you decide to post or whom you talk to online? Perhaps you’ve said something critical of the U.S. government. Perhaps you’ve jokingly threatened to whack someone.

If you’ve applied for a U.S. visa, there’s a chance your online missives have been subjected to this kind of scrutiny, all in the name of keeping America safe. But three years after the Trump administration ordered enhanced vetting of visa applications, the Biden White House has not only continued the program, but is defending it — despite refusing to say if it’s had any impact.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

Latest Stories