PACEM Solutions International, LLC v. Small Business Administration, et al.

Should this Court summarily reverse and remand this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for the same reason it did so on January 13, 2025, in Santana v. Garland, No. 24-46: “the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. 369 (2024).” In its August 4,, 2025, Opinion the 4th Circuit does not mention Loper, even though the appellant squarely presented Loper in its appeal: “The panel decision of August 4, 2025, is contrary to Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2261 (2024) (overruling Chevron and holding that ‘courts, not agencies, will decide ‘all relevant questions of law’ arising on review of agency action . . . even those involving ambiguous laws’). Instead of “decid[ing] ‘all relevant questions of law’ arising on review of agency action” in the face of an at best ambiguous provision the CARES Act, the panel deferred to the District Court, which had in turn deferred to the SBA, on four questions of law presented by appellant Pacem Solution International, LLC. The Court of Appeals denied rehearing on September 30, 2025, without an opinion.

Now that “Chev ron deference” has been overruled, should this Court direct lower courts to utilize the final article of the Bill of Rights for the purpose explained in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights -- “in order to prevent