• Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy said a SCOTUS ruling on federal regulations would help them cut spending through DOGE.
• Some legal experts have said this could actually restrict some of DOGE’s goals.
• Indeed, in the new legal framework, it will be more difficult to modify the interpretation of an existing rule.

The Supreme Court may not help Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy spending reduction targets as much as they could think.

President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Musk and Ramaswamy to lead a new Department of Government Effectiveness, or DOGEaimed at reducing government waste. Since then, both have said that a recent Supreme Court ruling that restricts the ability of federal agencies to promulgate regulations would strengthen their plans to downsize those agencies and remove unauthorized government programs.

This summer, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrinewhich was created in 1984 and allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguously worded laws when writing regulations, as long as they did not contradict congressional language. Instead, it is the courts themselves that are required to resolve these ambiguities, rather than experts in executive agencies.

Ramaswamy, a former Republican presidential candidate, wrote in a Dec. 1 statement job on radical reduction of the scope of the federal regulatory state. It happens. » Musk responded to the post by saying: “We are going to use this decision to gut the federal government. »

Some legal experts said that’s probably not the case, telling Business Insider that the Supreme Court’s overturning the Chevron ruling could actually constrain DOGE because it takes away an agency’s power to interpret laws. rules and make decisions independently.

Gillian Metzger, a constitutional law professor at Columbia Law School, told Business Insider that Musk and Ramaswamy’s argument is “somewhat confusing” because the Chevron decision “is about removing power from the executive branch and agency”.

“Chevron deference gave an agency the ability to change its interpretation of a statute, provided the statute was ambiguous and the agency reasonably offered a permissible interpretation,” Metzger said. “Without this precedent, it will be more difficult for them to change interpretations of the laws in ways that justify repealing the regulations.”

Always, Republican control from Congress and the White House could mean that DOGE’s goals have a better chance of being implemented with support from lawmakers.

Musk, Ramaswamy and the Trump transition The team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

Holes in Musk and Ramaswamy’s argument

The Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in June 2024 in a ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.. The case was brought by a group of fishermen who disagreed with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s interpretation of a law.

Nicholas Bagley, professor of administrative law at the University of Michigan, wrote in The Atlantic, that following the decision, “an agency that has already adopted the most sound interpretation of a law cannot change its mind.”

“If the agency tried to adopt a new reading of the law – perhaps the one DOGE prefers – and use it to justify repealing the rule, the courts would stop the agency,” Bagley wrote. “Saying that Loper Bright gives DOGE flexibility makes about as much sense as saying that handcuffs help throw a baseball.”

The Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that outlines how agencies must adopt and repeal regulations, would also complicate matters. Musk and Ramaswamy wrote in the Wall Street Journal that DOGE would offer Trump a list of regulations that they recommend repealing, and that Trump could then “immediately suspend enforcement of these regulations and begin the process of review and implementation.” ‘cancelation “. They wrote that it would “liberate” Americans and businesses from complying with regulations never passed by Congress.

However, to actually repeal a regulation, the APA requires a lengthy rulemaking process that includes seeking public comment and justifying the reasoning for rescinding a rule. The Biden administration followed this process to develop its second student loan forgiveness plan after the Supreme Court overturned the first. Metzger said repealing a rule would require temporary workers with subject matter expertise to help conduct that analysis, which would be difficult if DOGE achieves its goal of reducing the federal workforce.

Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said he understood why Musk and Ramaswamy were counting on Chevron’s move to help them cut regulations. If DOGE begins the process of repealing existing federal regulations, there will likely be litigation, and Coglianese said both DOGE leaders could bank on courts taking another look at a regulation and deciding that “the rule was too adventurous and acted well beyond their limits. statutory authority. »

Still, Coglianese said, that won’t be easy to do: An agency must provide detailed justifications for implementing a new rule, and Musk and Ramaswamy would then be tasked with proving why the original justifications should be overturned.

“There is an element of mystery as to the extent to which courts will be willing to reopen old precedents that were decided on the grounds of Chevron,” Coglianese said. “They’re counting on some ability to revisit some old statutory interpretations. It’s not clear the Supreme Court had that in mind when it overturned Chevron.”

How Congress Can Advance DOGE’s Goals

Recent Supreme Court rulings might not help DOGE achieve its goals, but a Republican trio in Congress would. Given that many of the changes Musk and Ramaswamy seek to make are unlikely to be accomplished through executive power alone, Congress would need to approve legislation to enact these changes.

Already, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is in agreement to advance some of the DOGE spending reduction proposals. Rep. Jared Moskowitz recently became the first Democratic lawmaker to officially join the DOGE caucus alongside dozens of Republicans, saying in a Dec. 3 statement: “I believe that streamlining government processes and reducing inefficient government spending should not not be a partisan issue.

Moskowitz singled out the Department of Homeland Security as a specific agency where he would support the investigation into spending cuts. Rep. Ro Khanna, another Democratic lawmaker, wrote in a Dec. 5 statement job on Musk “is absolutely right” to call for cuts in defense spending.

Treasury Department data shows the United States spent $6.75 trillion in fiscal year 2024, including highest expenses from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration and the Department of the Treasury. National defense spending is also high on the list, amounting to $874 billion.

With a glimmer of bipartisan support emerging for some of DOGE’s goals, spending cuts could be made easier through legislation. Musk and Ramaswamy met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Dec. 5, during which Republican Sen. Joni Ernst presented a proposal to enact existing legislation aimed at cutting spending by cracking down on telecommuting and getting rid of unused federal offices .

Senator Marsha Blackburn also job on federal”.

Metzger and Coglianese said the DOGE proposals could come to fruition through legislation, and the assumption that Musk and Ramaswamy can act alone on spending cuts — using Chevron as a backup — will likely run into opposition. legal obstacles.

“If you come and say, ‘We have a new sheriff in town, a new president, and we don’t like this rule,’ that’s not enough,” Coglianese said. “You have to be able to essentially refute all of these past cases and explain why, in the face of everything you said just a few years ago, you now want to get rid of a rule. It’s not easy to do.”