Cooley Law School held a special panel discussion, “Changes in the Law Under the Current Supreme Court,” on Tuesday, Sept. 17, in honor of Constitution Day.

Constitution Day commemorates the formation and signing of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787. Event panelists included: Cooley graduates Retired Judge Terrence Bronson and Deputy Attorney General of California Manisha Vadgama, Cooley Associate Dean Tonya Krause-Phelan, and Cooley professors Brendan Beery, Michael McDaniel, and Director Bill Fleener.

Throughout the event, panelists discussed recent Supreme Court decisions, while covering changes to administrative law, interpretation of constitutional issues, and stare decisis, which is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when ruling on a similar case.

Fleener discussed three cases each dealing with the creation and rise of the “Major Questions Doctrine,” a 2022 ruling that was implemented by the Supreme Court which declared that if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, its action must be supported by clear congressional authorization. Fleener shared that this ruling has led to increased judicial scrutiny of regulatory actions, where federal courts may not be prepared for the amount of litigation they’re going to deal with moving forward.

“If we’re expanding the idea of penalties, then almost all regulatory actions would have to happen in article three courts,” said Fleener. “It’s upset decades of precedent and done away with the idea that when you have a broad regulatory scheme, the right to jury is set aside and can be adjudicated in by an administrative agency.”

During the event, McDaniel discussed concerns relating to the Second Amendment, U.S. border, and other military issues that have been raised by the Supreme Court. He also shared insight on a domestic violence case which shifted the interpretation of the Second Amendment and placed the burden on states to prove their gun laws are consistent with historical regulation.

“The court is still going on its own path, rejecting both stare decisis and sort of, in an activist way, are willing to make laws rather than relying upon the administrative agencies who have the expertise,” said McDaniel.

One issue discussed by Vadgama and Krause-Phelan is regarding the nation’s unhoused population, particularly in California. Vadgama noted that although statutes have been passed, there have been little to no implementation.

“It does away with a lower court’s decision that you could not criminalize or punish someone for being homeless if there was no available housing or place to go within the jurisdiction,” said Krause-Phelan, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision to punish those who violated the camping statute. “In the name of trying to do away with imposing a duty on the courts, they say ‘no, we’re just going to say it’s okay for you to have these statutes,’ and then convict and punish them for that statute.”

“The Supreme Court can pass this, but it doesn’t mean anything for us because if we’re citing them with a misdemeanor, it’s not getting filed. They’re just getting released and it creates more of an issue,” said Vadgama. “They’re sort of stuck. A case like this can pass, but still nothing changes for them because of their local politicians here.”