Paul Noe has posted Loper Bright and the Ascendancy of the Cost-Benefit State on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The Supreme Court's overturning Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo launched an earnest debate about its implications. Understandably, the focus was the expected impact of its standard for judicial review of agency statutory interpretations on agency win rates, with some legal scholars predicting that "respectful consideration" (applying Skidmore) would not change the outcome in most cases. One issue that has not received the attention it deserves, however, is that Loper Bright also significantly advanced what leading legal scholars, particularly President Obama's former regulatory czar, call the "cost-benefit state"-the principle that "government regulation is increasingly assessed by asking whether the benefits of regulation justify the costs of regulation."
