Published
June 22, 2026
At the Founding, the Continental Congress was deeply concerned about an unaccountable and overbearing bureaucracy. In particular, the Declaration of Independence’s 10th grievance focused on how the British government had “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
These “new offices” were bureaucratic positions created to collect taxes under the Stamp Act and enforce unpopular policies in the colonies. These “swarms of Officers” aggressively enforced trade and other regulatory restrictions against the colonists. Such overregulation would “eat out [the colonists’] substance” and financial resources, while not being electorally accountable to the colonists. Taxation (and regulation) without representation.
Concerns about an unaccountable bureaucracy did not end with the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Especially since the New Deal, our country has seen an exponential growth of a modern administrative state, as Congress has delegated away broad swaths of power to federal agencies that are far less politically accountable to the people than Congress itself.
Read More in the America at 250 Series
A Fight of Decades
For nearly a half century, the Litigation Center has fought back against bureaucratic overreach and abuse in at least four ways.
First, the Litigation Center has challenged hundreds of excessive regulations that imposed tremendous burdens on businesses and thus the national economy. During the Biden Administration alone, we directly challenged about 20 such regulations, with major victories that limited expansive rulemaking by agencies such as the CFPB, FCC, FTC, NLRB, and SEC—helping prevent costly mandates and preserving flexibility for businesses. Legal challenges against bureaucratic overreach encourage federal agencies to regulate in a more reasonable manner and thus create more predictability and stability in the market.
Second, the Litigation Center has pushed back against Congress giving too much power to unelected bureaucrats. For decades, the Litigation Center has supported efforts to reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine—the constitutional prohibition on Congress giving away its legislative power to federal agencies. Just last year, we argued that the Supreme Court should take a proportional approach to nondelegation. The Court agreed, requiring Congress to provide detailed instructions and limitations proportional to the amount of authority delegated to federal agencies.
Similarly, the Litigation Center has supported the Supreme Court’s development of the major questions doctrine—the rule that federal agencies cannot regulate on matters of great economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. Earlier this year the Supreme Court agreed with the Chamber that a president does not have unbounded discretion to impose worldwide tariffs without clearer authorization from Congress.
Third, the Litigation Center has urged the Supreme Court to prohibit so-called independent agencies from being insulated from political accountability. The Litigation Center helped bring suit against the National Labor Relations Board when President Obama purported to recess-appoint new members during the Senate session, leading to a pathbreaking Supreme Court precedent that increases democratic control of agency leadership. We supported the challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s tenure-protected single head. And this Term, the Litigation Center encouraged the Court to overrule the landmark precedent that limits to the president’s ability to fire the heads of multi-member independent agencies—Humphrey’s Executor—and to restore greater political accountability in the administrative state.
Finally, the Litigation Center has won important victories to limit federal agencies from usurping the role of federal courts under the Constitution. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2014, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference—a doctrine that required courts to defer to federal agencies’ legal interpretations. The Court made clear that it is the role of courts—not agencies—to say what the law is. The Litigation Center has played an essential role in advising federal courts on how to approach statutory interpretation after Loper Bright. The fight continues, as we have advocated against other forms of agency arrogation that persist.
Facing the Future
The modern administrative state is here to stay. If left unchallenged, it will continue to grow and grow in ways that would have horrified the founding generation. Over the last half century, the Litigation Center has played a critical role in limiting the bureaucracy’s ability to harass individuals and businesses and devour private resources that are better employed in the market to spur economic growth and prosperity.
Read More in the Series
About the author
Daryl Joseffer
Daryl Joseffer is president at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, the litigation arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A former principal deputy solicitor general, Joseffer has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and briefed many more. He has argued dozens of appeals in other courts across the country.
