The Tax Trench Deepens

Congress, long divided, has been in gridlock for decades. The result has been regulatory ossification. Existing statutes lack the flexibility to manage the country’s many technological, social, environmental, sectoral and market challenges. However, without a Senate supermajority vote to override the filibuster, new legislation fails. While the budget reconciliation process has provided one of the few pathways around the filibuster, that process is limited to budgetary outlays and revenue measures. Consequently, a “tax trench” has been worn from Congress repeatedly pushing major regulatory and public benefits legislation through the process as tax provisions. Now, the tax trench is set to deepen. Following a spate of cases decided in 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court has placed a series of checks on federal regulatory authority, discretion and enforcement capacity. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overturned Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., holding that the courts must interpret regulations pursuant to the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, rather than deferring to executive branch expertise. In Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Court held that the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedure Act begins tolling when the plaintiff faces an injury, effectively eliminating the time-bar for claims that an administrative agency has exceeded its authority in setting regulations, and possibly a broader swath of challenges. In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Court held that defendants are entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court when administrative agencies seek to enforce civil damage claims that are “legal in nature.” Nevertheless, tax legislation continues to provide a pathway through this gauntlet of new hazards. This Article makes three contributions. First, it reviews the foregoing cases and their impacts on existing regulation: limits to executive branch interpretive authority, uncertainty within the administrative process and impediments to enforcement. Second, it identifies, within each of the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that have curtailed administrative authority, certain tax exceptions to these limits. Finally, it argues that these tax exceptions may permit regulatory action or public benefits in the form of tax legislation to pass scrutiny.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Florida Tax Review
Published
2025-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5744/ftr.2025.2007
Primary Topic
Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Tax Trench Deepens

Florida Tax Review
Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
article

The Tax Trench Deepens

article en

Abstract

Congress, long divided, has been in gridlock for decades. The result has been regulatory ossification. Existing statutes lack the flexibility to manage the country’s many technological, social, environmental, sectoral and market challenges. However, without a Senate supermajority vote to override the filibuster, new legislation fails. While the budget reconciliation process has provided one of the few pathways around the filibuster, that process is limited to budgetary outlays and revenue measures. Consequently, a “tax trench” has been worn from Congress repeatedly pushing major regulatory and public benefits legislation through the process as tax provisions. Now, the tax trench is set to deepen. Following a spate of cases decided in 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court has placed a series of checks on federal regulatory authority, discretion and enforcement capacity. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overturned Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., holding that the courts must interpret regulations pursuant to the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, rather than deferring to executive branch expertise. In Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Court held that the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedure Act begins tolling when the plaintiff faces an injury, effectively eliminating the time-bar for claims that an administrative agency has exceeded its authority in setting regulations, and possibly a broader swath of challenges. In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Court held that defendants are entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court when administrative agencies seek to enforce civil damage claims that are “legal in nature.” Nevertheless, tax legislation continues to provide a pathway through this gauntlet of new hazards. This Article makes three contributions. First, it reviews the foregoing cases and their impacts on existing regulation: limits to executive branch interpretive authority, uncertainty within the administrative process and impediments to enforcement. Second, it identifies, within each of the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that have curtailed administrative authority, certain tax exceptions to these limits. Finally, it argues that these tax exceptions may permit regulatory action or public benefits in the form of tax legislation to pass scrutiny.

Florida Tax ReviewVol. 28(2)
New York Law School (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.