Pete Buttigieg Says Airline Refund Rules Are Here to Stay Despite Trump Presidency
By Jake Beardslee ·
December 14, 2024
Outgoing Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg expressed confidence that the Biden administration's new airline refund rules would remain intact during Donald Trump’s presidency. Speaking with Travel + Leisure, Buttigieg emphasized that the regulations are “the law of the land,” suggesting they cannot be easily undone. Nathanial Gary-USA TODAY
Highlighting the durability of these measures, he pointed to their inclusion in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) legislation, stating, “The automatic refunds principle, for example, began as a rule making, but it wound up in the FAA legislation, which means it’s not something that any administration can unilaterally change.” MICHAEL CLUBB/SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images
The rules, introduced in April, mandate airlines to provide prompt cash refunds to passengers for canceled flights, eliminating unnecessary disputes. “Passengers deserve to get their money back when an airline owes them — without headaches or haggling,” Buttigieg said when the regulation was first announced. Nathanial Gary-USA TODAY
His comments come amid rising concerns about the enforceability of government regulations following a Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Chevron doctrine, which had allowed agencies significant flexibility in implementing federal policies. PD-US / Wikimedia
The Chevron doctrine, a cornerstone of administrative law established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), granted federal agencies broad deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes. This principle enabled agencies like the EPA or FDA to enact significant regulations within their expertise. Chevron Corporation / Wikimedia
However, its fall came with the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), signaling a judicial shift toward curbing agency power. Critics hailed the ruling as a victory for constitutional checks and balances, while opponents warned it could undermine the government's ability to address complex, technical issues. The decision reflects a growing skepticism of the administrative state in conservative legal circles. Joe Ravi / Wikimedia
