A significant shift in the Supreme Court is being referred to as a new Lockean revolution, as recent decisions have increasingly limited the power of regulatory agencies. This trend echoes back to the political philosophy of John Locke, who advocated for natural rights and limited government power, contrasting with Thomas Hobbes’ view of a strong central authority.
The Supreme Court’s decisions include West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where it was determined that the EPA exceeded its authority under an obscure statutory provision regarding carbon dioxide emissions. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the Chevron doctrine was overturned, shifting power to resolve vague statutes from regulatory agencies to the courts. Additionally, SEC v. Jarksey (2024) emphasized businesses’ right to jury trials against regulatory claims.
In Trump v. Wilcox (2025), President Trump was allowed to fire heads of certain boards despite statutory protections, signaling potential changes in executive powers over regulatory bodies.
The non-delegation doctrine could also be revived based on arguments heard in Consumers’ Research v. FCC this year. Historically weakened since its inception during New Deal-era rulings, there is speculation about its strengthening due to a current 6-3 Republican appointee majority in the Court.
This judicial trend may reduce compliance costs for businesses and allow more legal challenges against regulations. However, uncertainty regarding future regulatory regimes presents planning difficulties for companies.
Regulations under threat include those related to environmental standards and labor laws, potentially impacting businesses involved in compliance services while creating opportunities in emerging fields like cryptocurrency and drone-based services.
Thomas Jefferson’s emphasis on natural rights finds renewed relevance as these legal shifts align with Locke’s philosophies on limiting governmental power.
