On UnCommon Law, legal issues, public policy, and storytelling collide. We'll explore the most important legal stories of the day: Is affirmative action in college admissions constitutional? Is it time to kill the bar exam? Should social media face special legal scrutiny? What are law firms doing to fix their lack of diversity? This podcast, hosted by Matthew S. Schwartz, was the winner of the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award for Media and the Arts.
For decades, generations of schoolchildren linked to the video on the Schoolhouse Rock YouTube channellearned from Schoolhouse Rock that bills become laws through careful committee work, open debate, and thoughtful compromise. But as today's episode of UnCommon Law makes clear, that tidy version of lawmaking no longer reflects reality. Instead, leaders often craft omnibus bills in back rooms and create deliberately vague laws that punt hard decisions to federal agencies. But with the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision ending 40 years of judicial deference to agencies, critics say Congress can no longer hide behind this broken system.
In this season finale, we hear from a current and a former senator on opposite sides of the aisle who both argue that Congress must reclaim its constitutional role. They agree that decades of delegating authority to agencies has weakened the legislature, but they diverge on what should happen next. Should lawmakers strip out vague catchall words to limit agency discretion? Or should Congress work more closely with agencies to ensure workable, expert-informed legislation?
But can a deeply polarized institution actually change? While both senators agree on some solutions, they differ sharply on whether a different approach is even possible in today's political climate. On today's episode, we explore whether Congress can reclaim its constitutional role.
Featuring:
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.
Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.
13 Aug 2025TRANSCRIPT
4. If a Bartender is Cutting Lemons, Is She Still a Bartender?
In this episode, we explore the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine through the Loper Bright case, examining its impact on the regulatory landscape in America.
In just the first six months after Loper Bright was decided, courts cited the case more than 400 times, leading to the invalidation of new agency rules 84% of the time. This has affected policies ranging from net neutrality to labor regulations to environmental protections. We delve into how Loper Bright has already reshaped American regulatory policy.
We also look into how the Trump administration’s strategic use of Loper Bright to dismantle Biden-era rules, directing agencies to identify regulations that may be vulnerable under this new legal framework.
But is the celebration over Chevron’s demise premature? Some legal experts describe Loper Bright as “a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball” suggesting theat its impact might be more complex than anticipated, with different interpretations emerging.
Featuring:
Helgi Walker, partner at Gibson Dunn and co-chair of their administrative law and regulatory practice group
Rebecca Rainey, senior labor department reporter for Bloomberg Law
Cary Coglianese, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and director of the Penn Program on Regulation
28 May 2025TRANSCRIPT
Loper Bright: How a Little Boat Made Big Waves
Ryan Mulvey, Jeff Kaelin, Wayne Reichle, Gillian Metzger, Lydia Wheeler, Greg Stohr, and Kimberly Robinson discuss the Loper Bright case before the Supreme Court, which questions the Chevron doctrine and its impact on regulatory power, in an interview with Matthew S. Schwartz.
Inside a recent episode
Did Schoolhouse Rock Lie to Us?
Published 20 Aug 2025 · Transcript excerpt
[…] But you certainly want to limit an agency's ability to deviate from what the law was ever intended. I think a good example of that. Those catch -all words, he says, can give agencies too much power. And he says that when agencies deviate from congressional intent, that runs counter to the way the framers intended our system of government to work. If you want to understand a lot of the frustration that's out there in the real world, it's the idea that there are these faceless bureaucrats that make laws that nobody ever voted for, right? They're not accountable to anybody. And our system of government, of self -representation is kind of based on a level of accountability where you can praise me or blame me, you can elect me, you can re -elect me, you can send me home. […]
Pod Engine is an independent podcast discovery and analytics service and is not affiliated with or endorsed by this podcast. Artwork and show content belong to their owners. Full legal notice.
Explore this show Podcast research with Pod Engine
