REGULATORY LITIGATION
& COMPLIANCE
STRATEGY
FOR EXECUTIVES &
ENTERPRISES
Post-Chevron Federal Agency Defense, APA Rule Challenges & Administrative Enforcement Invalidation
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark reversal of Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo empowers businesses to challenge federal agency overreach. Kameli Law delivers aggressive regulatory defense and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) litigation nationwide.
Request a Regulatory Strategy SessionAdministrative Law & Regulatory Defense
The Regulatory Litigation & Compliance Group at Kameli Law guides commercial enterprises through federal agency inquiries, audits, and enforcement proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706). Following the Supreme Court’s definitive rulings in Loper Bright (eliminating Chevron deference) and Corner Post (expanding the statute of limitations to challenge agency rules), federal courts now evaluate statutory text de novo. We leverage this structural shift to defeat agency overreach by the SEC, DOL, FTC, EPA, and FinCEN.
De Novo Review
Challenging Regulatory Ambiguity
APA Section 706
Vacating Arbitrary & Capricious Rules
Major Questions Doctrine
Striking Unauthorized Federal Mandates
Federal agencies no longer enjoy automatic judicial deference when imposing novel compliance burdens. When an agency initiates an investigation or issues an enforcement notice, businesses can challenge whether the underlying regulation exceeds statutory authority granted by Congress.
Regulatory Defense Practice
Select a regulatory defense area below to review judicial challenge mechanisms, agency audit strategies, and compliance restructuring.
Filing direct lawsuits in federal district courts under the Administrative Procedure Act to stay, set aside, and permanently enjoin unlawful agency rules. We challenge administrative guidance, interpretative memos, and final rules that exceed statutory text or fail notice-and-comment requirements.
Show APA Grounds & Invalidation Standards
Arbitrary and Capricious Review: Demonstrating that agency action failed to consider key economic data, alternatives, or industry reliance interests.
Major Questions Doctrine Claims: Challenging agency policies possessing vast economic significance that lack explicit congressional authorization.
Corner Post Statute of Limitations: Utilizing the 2024 Supreme Court precedent to challenge long-standing regulatory burdens within six years of new business injury.
Defending corporations and C-suite executives during administrative audits, formal investigations, and Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs). We negotiate the scope of compulsory production requests, defend against investigative overreach, and resolve matters before administrative complaints issue.
Show Investigation Protocols & Defense
Civil Investigative Demand (CID) Defense: Filing petitions to limit or quash overbroad subpoenas served by the FTC, CFPB, or state attorneys general.
Department of Labor Audits: Representing employers in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Wage & Hour, and OSHA inspections.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hearings: Challenging the constitutionality and statutory authority of in-house agency tribunals under SEC v. Jarkesy.
Proactive corporate structuring to immunize commercial operations from shifting federal reporting mandates. We design internal compliance controls, petition agencies for formal interpretive letters and no-action relief, and restructure operations around statutory exemptions.
Show Compliance Frameworks
FinCEN Corporate Transparency Act Controls: Establishing ongoing beneficial ownership compliance protocols to eliminate civil penalties.
Cross-Border Trade & Sanctions Audits: Aligning import/export logistics and fund flows with OFAC and Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regulations.
Formal Exemption Applications: Drafting petitions for administrative waivers and private letter rulings confirming non-applicability of burdensome rules.
Insulating C-suite officers, managing directors, and general partners from personal liability under federal regulatory statutes. When federal agencies attempt to pierce corporate governance to hold individuals personally responsible for corporate non-compliance, we mount aggressive constitutional and statutory defenses.
Show Officer Shielding Strategies
Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine Defense: Defeating government claims holding executives strictly liable for corporate regulatory violations.
D&O Policy & Advancement Rights: Enforcing mandatory corporate indemnification agreements and securing legal fee advancements during investigations.
Statutory Disqualification Defense: Preventing regulatory bans and professional bars from disqualifying founders from future enterprise management.
Judicial Shift Comparison
Pre-Chevron vs. Post-Chevron Regulatory Landscape
Understanding your business’s expanded legal power to invalidate agency rules under Supreme Court precedents.
| Legal Benchmark | Under Chevron Deference (Old Law) | Post-Loper Bright (Current Law) | Business Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory Interpretation | Courts deferred to any "permissible" agency interpretation of ambiguous laws | Courts exercise independent de novo judgment on statutory text | Businesses can defeat agency overreach by pointing strictly to plain statutory text |
| Judicial Power | Judges rubber-stamped agency decisions unless proven completely unreasonable | Courts must decide all relevant questions of law under APA § 706 | Judges no longer treat agency lawyers as final authorities on congressional statutes |
| Statute of Limitations (Corner Post) | 6-year window commenced when the regulation was first published by the agency | 6-year period begins when the business is first injured by the rule | New businesses and startups can challenge old, entrenched federal regulations |
| Administrative Jury Rights (Jarkesy) | Agencies imposed massive civil fines internally via in-house ALJs without a jury | Seventh Amendment guarantees right to a federal jury trial for civil fraud | Agencies can no longer enforce civil penalties in biased in-house administrative courts |
Facing Burdensome Federal Mandates or an Agency Audit?
Have our administrative litigation attorneys evaluate your exposure under post-Chevron standards and design a challenge strategy.
Administrative Case Spotlight
Institutional Advocacy
Navigating a Transformative Era in Federal Administrative Law
Federal agencies have long relied on aggressive administrative guidance documents to expand their regulatory power without congressional enactments. In today's post-Chevron legal landscape, companies in healthcare, fintech, transportation, and real estate are no longer defenseless against shifting bureaucratic interpretations.
Direct Administrative Petitions: Submitting formal petitions for rulemaking or amendment under APA § 553(e) to establish statutory challenge standing.
Emergency Preliminary Injunctions: Seeking federal court orders to halt enforcement of arbitrary mandates while full judicial review is pending.
Strategic Negotiated Settlements: Utilizing statutory overreach arguments as affirmative leverage to secure reduced compliance obligations.
Consult with Our Administrative Law LitigatorsOur Regulatory Defense Protocol
A three-stage tactical framework engineered to neutralize agency overreach and establish compliant commercial stability.
Statutory & Jurisdiction Audit
Comparing the agency’s proposed enforcement theory against the enabling statute's exact congressional text, identifying ultra vires overreach.
Agency Negotiations & APA Briefing
Asserting post-Chevron de novo defenses during administrative meetings, preparing formal comment letters, and drafting federal court complaints.
Injunctive Relief & Compliance Immunity
Securing federal stays and preliminary injunctions against enforcement actions while realigning company operations under verified statutory safe harbors.
Frequently
Asked Questions
Authoritative answers on post-Chevron litigation, agency authority, and challenging existing federal rules.
Does the reversal of Chevron mean federal agencies have lost their authority?
No. Federal agencies retain full constitutional authority to enforce statutes enacted by Congress. However, what has ended is the era of "automatic judicial deference." Previously under the Chevron doctrine, if a federal statute was ambiguous, courts were legally required to accept the agency’s interpretation as long as it was deemed "reasonable." Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, federal judges must now independently interpret the law de novo. Agencies no longer receive special deference merely because of their administrative status.
Can my business challenge an agency regulation that has been on the books for years?
Yes. Historically, the federal government argued that under the general six-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)), Administrative Procedure Act challenges had to be brought within six years of the rule's initial publication in the Federal Register. However, in Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court ruled that the six-year clock does not start until the specific business is actually injured by the regulation. This decision allows newly formed enterprises or established companies expanding into new markets to challenge long-standing regulations.
Does regulatory litigation apply only to large publicly traded corporations?
No. Small and midsize businesses frequently carry disproportionate compliance burdens because they lack large in-house legal departments. Regulatory litigation under the APA is frequently spearheaded by private enterprises, founders, trade groups, and growing startups facing arbitrary enforcement, unworkable wage rules, environmental mandates, or unconstitutional digital asset restrictions imposed by agencies exceeding their congressional mandate.
What is the "Major Questions Doctrine" and when is it asserted?
The Major Questions Doctrine is an established administrative principle affirmed by the Supreme Court (notably in West Virginia v. EPA). It holds that when an administrative agency seeks to issue regulations that have vast "economic and political significance," courts will not assume that Congress intended to delegate that power implicitly. The agency must point to clear, explicit statutory language authorizing the regulatory action. If the statute lacks specific authorization, the federal court will strike down the rule as an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority.
Prepare Your Enterprise
for a New Regulatory Era
Kameli Law helps you evaluate regulatory vulnerability, construct rock-solid compliance programs, and challenge overreaching agency mandates under modern Supreme Court standards.
Schedule an Executive Consultation