THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 34 | AUGUST 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Labor & Employment The Employment Law Landscape in a Post-Loper World By Byrona J. Maule and Stassi M. Vullo The Loper Bright decision was followed closely by Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.6 In Corner Post, the Supreme Court considered when a claim under the APA accrues for purposes of challenging a particular final agency action or regulation. The Supreme Court held that the six-year statute of limitations under the APA did not accrue until a plaintiff had suffered an injury. A limitations period does not commence until the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action. The impact of this holding is that a newly formed company, Corner Post Inc., which was formed in 2018, can bring a lawsuit in 2021 challenging a regulation enacted by the Federal Reserve Board in 2011. Why? Because Corner Post Inc. was first injured by the 2011 regulation in 2018, upon Corner Post Inc.’s creation, and thus, it can challenge the regulation that had been in place since 2011 under Loper Bright. The result of Loper Bright and Corner Post taken together is that any regulation can be challenged under Loper Bright at any time if a new “entity” or “company” brings the challenge. For employers who need certainty to create strategic plans around such things as the cost of doing business – i.e., wage and overtime expenses – these cases have not only created challenges but also opportunities. Loper Bright will also be a tool for employers to challenge regulations that an employer deems unfair or an administrative overreach. When challenging a regulation under Loper Bright, an important THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN LOPER BRIGHT MARKED A SIGNIFICANT shift in administrative law.1 For 40 years, courts have employed the Chevron standard, deferring to an agency’s interpretation of statutory text when that text was ambiguous.2 In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled this long-held precedent, marking a seismic shift in the administrative branch.3 In a 6-3 decision, the court held that courts “must exercise independent judgment in determining whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”4 The court overruled Chevron deference, rejecting the idea that statutory ambiguities inherently delegate interpretive authority to agencies. Chevron deference centered on the premise that agencies possess special expertise in their fields, warranting deference regarding their statutory interpretation. The court disagreed, noting that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) specifically denotes that it is a court’s duty to “decide all relevant questions of law” and “interpret statutory provisions.”5 Loper Bright has shifted the legal landscape – judges no longer defer to an agency’s interpretation. Federal courts and judges now may take a more active role in ascertaining and defining a statute’s “best” reading.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==