The individual needs to read the article summary to answer questions A through C$.$ It mainly explains how four Supreme Court decisions from the $2024$ term have reduced the power of federal agencies, such as the DOL, NLRB$,$ EEOC, and OSHA. The article discusses how these four decisions now limit these agencies' ability to enforce and create regulations, and it predicts that these agencies will need to file strategic lawsuits and provide informal guidance to public and private employers.

Article summary: The Supreme Court's $2024$ term has seen four decisions limiting agencies' power to make policy through formal rule making and adjudication. These decisions could make it harder for agencies to defend major rules on overtime, joint employment, prevailing wages, pregnancy accommodation, and noncompete agreements. The decisions may push agencies to make policy through strategic lawsuits and informal guidance, potentially transforming labor and employment law. In$-$house quasi$-$courts of agencies, including the SEC, are unconstitutional due to administrative procedures and lack of a jury. The Supreme Court has expanded the window for rulemaking challenges in Corner Post, Inc. v$.$ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, allowing challengers to sue to block long$-$standing rules. Labor and employment law agencies, such as the Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Occupational Health and Safety Administration, will face new constraints on their discretion and policy development. The new law also prohibits agencies from collecting civil fines or other punitive remedies through their in$-$house processes, affecting about two$-$dozen agencies. The Supreme Court has ruled that the SEC's system violated the Seventh Amendment and its administrative law judges were invalidly appointed, violating Article II$15$ of the U$.$S$.$ Constitution. Plaintiffs are challenging these judges' status. Labor and employment agencies, including the NLRB$,$ may face challenges in policymaking due to balancing statutory and property rights. However, they have incentives to update and change their rules, often using informal guidance. The Department of Labor issues nonbinding guidance, which can shape employers' behavior. State and city agencies are increasingly influencing binding rules. State agencies' power is uncertain due to social, policy, and political factors, and judges may make decisions based on merits. The direction of labor and employment policy will be determined in the coming months, with major rules already facing challenges from the NLRB$,$ EEOC, DOL, and OSHA. Employers should work closely with their counsel to understand these developments.

$-$The individual needs to answer questions A through C thoroughly and succinctly and provide examples to justify the individual$$s way of thinking.

A$)$ Is there any theme or reason the individual can see in these four decisions that explains why SCOTUS has adopted this "anti$-$government" stance regarding employment law agencies?

B$)$ If so$,$ what is this theme or reasoning? If the individual do not see any, why does the individual think SCOTUS decided these four cases this way?

C$)$ How does the individual think these decisions will affect $($or won't affect$)$ the way human resources departments address issues like those in these four cases? Could employers end up creating policies that conflict with certain agency regulations because they believe a judge will deem the regulations unreasonable?