The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three decisions at the end of the term that remakes the landscape for judicial review of actions taken by federal regulators.

On June 27, the court in Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy brought into question the legitimacy of a whole range of administrative bodies that assess civil penalties.

The following day, the court issued its landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, discarding in total the Chevron deference standard that for four decades had been the standard by which federal courts had reviewed the actions of federal agencies.

And after a weekend break, the court wrapped up the term by rendering Corner Post, Inc. v. Federal Reserve Board. To critics, the decision renders illusory the six-year statute of limitations on suits brought against federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act.

“It was a huge week for people who practice administrative law,” said Boston environmental litigator Eric L. Klein of the end of the Supreme Court term. “I don’t remember one quite like it.”

It’s hard to downplay the significance of Loper Bright, Corner Post, Jarkesy and other regulatory decisions issued earlier in the term, said Michael J. Yelnosky, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island.

“There’s just going to be a lot of disruption in the agencies. This huge chunk of modern American regulation and enforcement is now up for grabs,” he said.

Braintree, Massachusetts, attorney Karis L. North has a unique perspective on the changes wrought by the Supreme Court. An environmental lawyer before concentrating on municipal and public sector law, North worked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency writing regulations before enrolling in law school.

“I’ve dealt with Chevron deference my entire career,” she said.

The decision in Loper Bright came as no surprise to North.

“This court has been very clear that they want to give as much power to the courts as possible,” she said.