Abstract
Although not directed at health care fraud, recent Supreme Court administrative law decisions—particularly Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and SEC v. Jarkesy—have destabilized the administrative foundations of federal health care fraud enforcement. The end of Chevron deference has shifted interpretive authority from agencies to courts, potentially increasing challenges to regulations and other administrative interpretations while encouraging agencies to rely more heavily on informal and less stable forms of guidance. Jarkesy further complicates enforcement by threatening the legality of civil monetary penalties, a common administrative penalty in health care fraud cases. Heightened judicial scrutiny, regulatory uncertainty, shifting executive priorities, and potential constitutional challenges may constrain the government’s ability to combat health care fraud effectively in the future.
Recommended Citation
Joan H. Krause,
Fighting Fraud with Two Hands Tied Behind Your Back: Health Care Fraud in the New Administrative State,
40 J.L. & Health
1
(2026)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/jlh/vol40/iss1/5
Included in
Civil Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons