The Supreme Court is on the verge of potentially undermining the regulatory powers of federal agencies in an upcoming decision on a case brought by commercial fishermen. While liberal justices seemed in favor of maintaining these regulatory powers, the conservative majority implied they were in favor of undermining them.
Regulatory Powers on the Brink?
On Jan 17, the justices heard arguments in two cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. These cases center on the argument that Congress never explicitly granted federal regulators the power to mandate fishermen to cover the costs of federal compliance monitors.
Questioning Chevron’s Validity
The court, which leans conservatively with a 6-3 majority, faces a request to discard the Chevron deference doctrine. Stemming from the court’s 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, this doctrine advises courts to respect a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous or unclear laws.
Congress’s Diminished Role?
The attorneys representing the fishermen argued in their brief that Chevron’s deference encourages a scenario where Congress engages less than the Founding Fathers envisioned, leading to the executive branch taking on a more significant role by “ deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat.”
A Shift in Regulatory Powers
Chevron, often referenced in Supreme Court cases, is increasingly being challenged by conservatives who argue it overextends the power of federal agencies. Overturning this precedent could render sustaining government regulations more difficult.
Expert Insights
Kimberly Wehle, a University of Baltimore law professor, noted in an October Newsweek op-ed that a court “must defer to an agency’s reasonable readings of a statute when it’s reviewing regulations rather than override its expert judgment because Congress tapped the agency, not courts, to fill in blanks left by legislation.”
What’s at Stake?
Wehle added, “If the Supreme Court overrules Chevron, it would put thousands of regulations in legal jeopardy, simultaneously thrusting the industries they regulate in economic uncertainty. It would also enhance the Court’s power, as judges would become the deciders of regulatory policy.”
Constitutional Concerns
Four of the Supreme Court’s conservative members, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have raised doubts about the validity of the Chevron deference. In a notable 2020 dissent, Thomas reversed his earlier position by condemning the doctrine as unconstitutional.
Recusal Calls Amidst Controversy
Furthermore, Thomas has been urged to recuse himself after reports surfaced of his secret participation in donor summits organized by the Koch brothers, prominent Chevron deference critics.
Eight Justices to Decide
The case will proceed with only eight justices, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s three liberals, recused herself due to her prior involvement in the appellate court that heard the case.
A 200-Mile Debate
Enacted in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that fisheries within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline must permit federal observers on their vessels to gather data to prevent overfishing.
Who Pays for Marine Monitoring?
The Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, brought by New England Fisheries, challenges the National Marine Fisheries Service’s interpretation of this act, arguing against the requirement for them to pay the observers’ salaries.
Chevron in the Court’s Net
Central to Loper is the Chevron doctrine, which authorizes federal agencies like the National Marine Fisheries Service to decipher ambiguities in statutes under their jurisdiction.
Redefining Regulatory Boundaries
Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce is a critical case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 17, 2024. This case falls within the court’s October 2023-2024 term and directly challenges the scope and application of the Chevron deference doctrine.
Federal Fishery Law Under Microscope
Specifically, it questions how the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit used this doctrine to support the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) interpretation of a federal fishery law.
Supreme Tweaks to Chevron?
Having reached the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari from the First Circuit, its outcome could reshape how federal courts apply Chevron deference, possibly tweaking its usage or outlining specific guidelines for its application.
Read Next: What Really Causes Donald Trump’s Skin to be So Orange
Former President Donald Trump’s distinctive orange skin has captivated attention, sparking curiosity about its evolution from average pale over the years:
What Really Causes Donald Trump’s Skin to be So Orange
21 of the Biggest Lies in American History
Dive into the shadows of American history as we explore 21 of its biggest lies that have left an indelible mark on the nation’s narrative:
21 of the Biggest Lies in American History
32 Things We Once Highly Respected but Are a Complete Joke Now
Discover the amusing downfall of once-respected entities in our changing world:
32 Things We Once Highly Respected but Are a Complete Joke Now
23 of Donald Trump’s Most Hilarious Moments as President
Explore the lighter side of Donald Trump’s presidency with 23 hilariously memorable moments that left the nation in stitches:
23 of Donald Trump’s Most Hilarious Moments as President
27 Things MAGA Movement Ruined Forever for People
How the MAGA movement left its mark on individuals and disrupted certain aspects of our everyday life forever:
