Adam White, Jace Lington, and Bennett Nuss analyze the recent Supreme Court decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, focusing on the implications for executive power, administrative agency independence, and the future of administrative law.

• Adam White in SCOTUSblog
  
• Aditya Bamzai & Aaron Nielson on the Fed and Article II at The Cornell Law Review
  

Adam White hosts Chief Judge Susan G. Braden (Ret.) to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which held the Federal Trade Commission’s statutory independence unconstitutional and explicitly overruled Humphrey’s Executor. Braden argues the ruling will ripple across administrative law by treating agencies with authority to file lawsuits on behalf of the United States as executive agencies subject to presidential control, and by limiting “independent” agencies to advisory roles.

Sign up for email updates from the Gray Center here

• Judge Braden's paper on the future of the FTC
• Adam White's analysis of Slaughter and Cook in SCOTUSblog

In this first panel from the Gray Center’s May conference, moderator Christopher J. Walker (University of Michigan) speaks with Megan Brown (Wiley Rein LLP), Roman Martinez (Latham & Watkins LLP), and Maria Monaghan (U.S. Chamber Litigation Center) about what courts are doing after Chevron’s overruling in Loper Bright. They discuss unresolved issues now playing out in lower courts, including Skidmore’s role, congressional delegation and “policymaking discretion,” stare decisis for prior Chevron-era precedents, and implications for other deference doctrines like Auer/Kisor.

Sign up for email updates from the Gray Center here

In this final panel from the Gray Center’s October conference, moderator Aaron Nielsen (UT Austin) speaks with Judge Naomi Rao (D.C. Circuit) and Judge Steven Menashi (Second Circuit) about their role as judges after Loper Bright ended Chevron deference. Rao and Menashi describe their interpretive approaches—text-first, but attentive to context, structure, statutory purpose, and legal terms of art—and emphasize that interpretation involves judgment. They argueLoper Bright largely restores courts’ independent duty to decide questions of law under the APA, while still allowing agencies discretion where statutes leave open-textured implementation choices or explicit delegations. The panel discusses D.C. Circuit practices, post–Loper Bright arguments about expertise, “express delegation,” Skidmore, forum shopping, major questions doctrine, scientific complexity, and how the debate may shift toward Article I and nondelegation.

Sign up for email updates from the Gray Center here

The third panel discussion from the Gray Center’s Fall 2025 conference featuring:

• Noah Phillips, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
• Matt Stoller, American Economic Liberties Project
  
  
  
• Moderator:
  Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss chat with Chad Squitieri about his new paper, Congress in the Mouth of a Lawyer, which focuses on the president’s role in the lawmaking process. Prof. Squittieri discusses the constitutional role of the president in lawmaking, the importance of precise definitions of Congress, and implications for judges interpreting statutes. He explores how understanding the president's involvement influences legal doctrines and the separation of powers.

The second panel discussion from the Gray Center's Fall 2025 conference featuring: 

• Sarah Binder, Brookings Institution
• Jonathan Macey, Yale Law School
• Aaron Nielson, University of Texas
  
  
• Moderator:
  Adam White, C. Boyden Gray Center

The first panel discussion from the Gray Center's Fall 2025 conference featuring: 

• James Burnham, King Street Legal, and formerly of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency
  
• Susan Dudley, former Administrator, White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Founder & Senior Scholar, GW Regulatory Studies Center; Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration
  
• Lisa Heinzerling, Georgetown University Law Center
  
• Moderator: Mene Ukueberuwa, Wall Street Journal
  

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss chat with Caroline Cecot about how recent changes in the EPA's analytical methods affect transparency and environmental protection. She discusses the evolution of cost-benefit analysis from a deregulatory tool to a framework for safeguarding health and the environment, and how recent administrative moves might revert it to "arbitrary and capricious" territory. The conversation delves into critical questions about regulatory decision-making, the role of Congress, and the impact of transparency on public trust.

Notes:

• Benefit-Cost Analysis Under Threat, Caroline Cecot, The Regulatory Review 
• Rethinking Health-Based Environmental Standards, Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz, New York University Law Review 
• Deregulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Stability, Caroline Cecot, Duke Law Journal 
• EPA Turbine Rule, January 2026 

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss chat with Adam White about the recent Supreme Court case, exploring the nuances of statutory interpretation, the major questions doctrine, and the implications for executive and legislative powers. The Gray Center team analyzes the court's opinions, historical context, and future legal debates.

Notes:

• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
• Michael D. Ramsey making an originalist defense of the Major Questions Doctrine
• John Ehrett's article at The American Mind about the New Right and the Major Questions Doctrine
• Adam White on the Court's approach to presidential power
• John Eastman on the tariff as an exercise of foreign policy