Administrative Law Report - April 2025, Vol. 6

Welcome to your monthly rundown of all things administrative law, where we highlight all the happenings you may have missed.

View previous issues and sign up to receive future newsletters by email here.

Environmental/Energy:

• Supreme Court Rejects EPA’s “End-Result” Conditions in NPDES Permits: On Mar. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA’s inclusion of “end-result” conditions in discharge permits was inconsistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case centered on San Francisco’s wastewater treatment facility, which had operated under an NPDES permit for years until its 2019 renewal introduced new requirements prohibiting discharges that contributed to violations of water quality standards or created pollution under California law. The Court, employing a textualist approach, analyzed the statutory language of CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C) and determined that a general prohibition on exceeding water quality standards did not constitute a permissible “limitation” authorized by Congress. Additionally, the Court emphasized the statutory “permit shield” provision, finding that allowing the EPA to impose broad liability for water quality conditions beyond a permittee’s control would undermine the certainty Congress intended to provide. The decision underscores the Court’s continued reliance on statutory text and context over agency interpretations in environmental regulation.

• EPA Announces Reconsideration of a Host of EPA Regulations: On Mar. 12, EPA announced that it would reconsider a host of existing EPA regulations in furtherance of the Trump Administration’s deregulatory effort. Regulations being reconsidered include those that run counter to Trump’s Executive Orders. EPA Administrator Zeldin stated that EPA’s reconsideration effort is designed to “unleash American energy, revitalize the American auto industry, restore the rule of law and give power back to the States.” To initiate such reconsideration, EPA will have to go through notice and comment rulemaking and once a final rule is issued it will undoubtedly be litigated. The list of regulations to be “reconsidered” cover a wide range of subject matters including, but not limited to, greenhouse gas/climate change, air toxins, wastewater discharges, coal ash permitting, oil and gas production and air quality standards. By far, the most impactful reconsideration will be EPA’s reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding that forms the basis for all the greenhouse gas/power plant regulations. With the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, EPA will not be able to rely on the deference afforded EPA’s “technical expertise” to support its effort. Rather, it is expected that because of the inevitability of litigation of any new rules, courts will rely on their expertise on statutory construction to determine what is the best reading of the statute.

Food and Drug:

• Federal Court Strikes Down FDA Rule on Laboratory Developed Tests: A ruling by the United States District Court in American Clinical Laboratory Association v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 4:24-CV-479 (E.D. Tex.) struck down the FDA Rule on Laboratory Developed Tests.  The FDA rule expanded the definition of “in vitro diagnostic products” to explicitly include laboratory developed tests (LDTs), thereby subjecting them to regulation as medical “devices.” Plaintiffs in the litigation argued that the final rule should be vacated under the Administrative Procedure Act because it exceeds FDA’s statutory authority, is contrary to law, and is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.  In deciding the case the Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright that overruled the Chevron deference standard which deterred courts from using their independent judgement in deciding whether an agency had acted within its statutory authority.  The District Court’s decision marks a significant setback for the FDA’s long-standing efforts to assert greater oversight over LDTs, which are widely used in clinical settings but have been traditionally regulated under a more flexible framework. The court’s ruling underscores ongoing legal and regulatory uncertainty in this space and may have far-reaching implications for both test developers and healthcare providers.

Tax:

• Congress Moves to Regain Authority Over Tariffs with Trade Review Act of 2025: On Apr. 3, a group of bipartisan lawmakers introduced the Trade Review Act of 2025, seeking to limit the executive branch’s unilateral authority over tariffs. The proposed legislation would require the President to notify Congress of new tariffs, justify their imposition, and assess their economic impact. Under the bill, tariffs would automatically expire within 60 days unless affirmed by a joint Congressional resolution. This move reflects growing bipartisan concerns over the broad use of tariff powers and aims to restore congressional oversight in trade policy decisions. Businesses impacted by recent tariff changes should monitor legislative developments closely, as this bill could significantly alter the trade regulatory landscape.

Telecommunications:

• Federal Claims Court Applies Loper Bright to Bid Protest, Rejects GSA’s Interpretation of Section 889: The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently applied the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision in QED Group LLC Q2 Impact v. United States, ruling in favor of a protester challenging the General Services Administration’s (GSA) interpretation of Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The GSA disqualified the protester from an OASIS+ contract, asserting that Section 889 prohibited contracting with any entity using covered telecommunications equipment unless a new waiver was obtained—even if a waiver had already been granted by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) for a separate contract. The Court, applying the Loper Bright statutory interpretation standard, found that neither the FAR Council nor the GSA had previously addressed the applicability of DNI waivers and rejected the GSA’s attempt to extend agency-head waiver requirements to DNI waivers. The Court held that if the GSA intends to exclude contractors relying on DNI waivers, it must explicitly state so in its solicitations.

Transportation:

• Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board is Discussing a Reorganization of the Agency: Through a series of stakeholder meetings—but without a formal announcement to date—Surface Transportation Board (STB) Chairman Patrick Fuchs has been informally discussing a potential reorganization of the STB aimed at improving transparency and efficiency in decision-making. The reorganization would merge the Office of Proceedings and the Office of General Counsel to eliminate silos and streamline the flow of matters from staff to Board members, with a new Managing Associate Counsel overseeing workflow to help the agency meet its statutory deadlines. Chairman Fuchs has also indicated plans to dissolve the Office of Passenger Rail, with staff reassigned to offices focused on legal, economic, and environmental issues, and to centralize all data analytics functions within the Office of Economics. View Latest News from the Surface Transportation Board here.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.