The war on the administrative state escalates
By 
It will obviously get somewhat buried by the installation of monarchy in the USA, but the Supreme Court also made the overruling of Chevron even more consequential:
The Supreme Court on Monday gave companies more time to challenge many regulations, ruling that a six-year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits begins when a regulation first affects a company rather than when it is first issued.
The ruling in the case — the latest in a series of challenges to administrative power this term — could amplify the effect of the blockbuster decision last week overturning a foundational legal precedent known as Chevron deference, which required federal courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. That decision imperils countless regulations, particularly on the environment, and advances a longstanding goal of the conservative legal movement.
The vote was 6 to 3, split along ideological lines. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, rejected the government’s argument that the time limit to sue begins when an agency issues a rule.
Under the government’s view, she wrote, “only those fortunate enough to suffer an injury within six years of a rule’s promulgation” could sue. She added, “Everyone else — no matter how serious the injury or how illegal the rule — has no recourse.”
The obvious problem with Coney Barrett’s reasoning, needless to say, is that you can say something about every statute of limitations, which doesn’t make it impermissible for Congress to establish one.
As Justice Jackson explains, this is another disaster:
Next, the results. The Court’s baseless conclusion means that there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face. Allowing every new commercial entity to bring fresh facial challenges to long-existing regulations is profoundly destabilizing for both Government and businesses. It also allows well-heeled litigants to game the system by creating new entities or finding new plaintiffs whenever they blow past the statutory deadline.
The majority refuses to accept the straightforward, commonsense, and singularly plausible reading of the limitations statute that Congress wrote. In doing so, the Court wreaks havoc on Government agencies, businesses, and society at large.
[…]
At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government. Even more to the present point, that result simply cannot be what Congress intended when it enacted legislation that stood up and funded federal agencies and vested them with authority to set the ground rules for the individuals and entities that participate in the our economy and our society. It is utterly inconceivable that §2401(a)’s statute of limitations was meant to permit fresh attacks on settled regulations from all new comers forever. Yet, that is what the majority holds today.
Jackson goes on to say that Congress could amend the the statute to override the Court’s decision, which is true in theory but as long as the filibuster remains in place not in practice, even leaving aside the Court’s tendency toward bad faith statutory interpretation to frustrate the will of Congress (as indeed is exactly what happened here.)