Conservative Supreme Court majority limits agency power
Supreme Court Takes Aim at Controversial Precedent, Fueling Debate on Agency Power
Republican-Appointed Majority Questions Decades-Old Chevron Doctrine
Arguments in two separate hearings on Wednesday surrounded appeals filed by two fishing companies of lower court rulings that allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service to force commercial fishermen to help pay for “at-sea” human monitors to be on board their vessels and keep track of the number of herring fish caught. The companies argue that Congress never authorized the agency, which is part of the Commerce Department, to establish the program.
The Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority is closely examining a long-standing precedent that has been criticized for granting excessive power to federal agencies. In two separate hearings, the court heard appeals from fishing companies challenging lower court rulings that allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service to impose financial burdens on commercial fishermen. The companies argue that the agency lacked the authority to establish a program requiring them to fund human monitors on their vessels.
The 40-year-old precedent in question is the Chevron doctrine, which has faced significant scrutiny from the majority of the justices. This doctrine states that when a federal rule is challenged in court, the court should defer to the agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of the congressional statute that grants them permission to create the rule. However, several conservative justices expressed skepticism about completely overturning the doctrine, while the Democratic-appointed justices emphasized the importance of deferring to agency expertise in cases of ambiguous statutes.
The Supreme Court has been gradually distancing itself from Chevron over the past eight years, favoring the major questions doctrine instead. This alternative approach requires Congress to explicitly authorize actions with significant political and economic impacts. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Chevron had effectively been overruled in practice, while Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, criticized the confusion caused by the doctrine in lower courts.
The fate of Chevron will be decided by the end of June, and the court’s decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary.
What are the potential implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Chevron doctrine?
Ght. The companies argued that the Fisheries Service lacked the authority to impose such a requirement and that it was an overreach of agency power.
These cases have brought the contentious issue of agency power to the forefront, as the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority has expressed skepticism over the longstanding Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine, established by a 1984 Supreme Court case, gives deference to agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statutes as long as the interpretation is reasonable.
In recent years, the Chevron doctrine has faced criticism from conservatives who argue that it gives too much power to unelected bureaucrats and allows them to make policy decisions without sufficient oversight from the elected branches of government. Critics say that this results in an erosion of separation of powers and undermines democratic accountability.
The cases heard on Wednesday were seen as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take a stand on the Chevron doctrine and potentially limit agency power. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointed by Republican presidents, appeared to be particularly skeptical of the doctrine during the oral arguments.
Justice Gorsuch pointed out that Chevron deference allows agencies to not only interpret ambiguous statutes but also to fill gaps in the law. He questioned whether this expansive authority is consistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Justice Kavanaugh echoed these concerns, stating that Chevron may give agencies the ability to “create policy” rather than simply interpreting laws passed by Congress. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that the role of agencies remains within the bounds of the law and democratic accountability.
The implications of the Supreme Court’s potential decision on the Chevron doctrine are far-reaching. It could affect not only environmental regulations enforced by the National Marine Fisheries Service but also a wide range of other agency actions. Given the significant role agencies play in shaping and implementing government regulations, any limitation on their power could have substantial implications for the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
The arguments heard on Wednesday reflect a broader debate about the role and scope of agency power in our democracy. Supporters of the Chevron doctrine argue that it provides necessary flexibility for agencies to address complex and evolving policy issues. They contend that agencies are composed of experts who have the expertise and knowledge to make informed decisions. Additionally, they argue that overturning Chevron would result in unnecessary, time-consuming litigation and potentially inconsistent interpretations of statutes.
Opponents of the Chevron doctrine, on the other hand, believe that it undermines democratic accountability and encroaches on the powers of the other branches of government. They argue that major policy decisions should be made by elected representatives, not unaccountable bureaucrats.
As the Supreme Court weighs in on the Chevron doctrine, it is clear that the outcome will have significant implications for the future of agency power in our democracy. The Court’s decision will shape how agencies interpret and enforce laws, and it could have widespread effects on the regulatory landscape. Regardless of the specific outcome, the debate surrounding agency power will likely continue, as scholars, lawmakers, and interested parties grapple with the question of how to strike the right balance between agency expertise and democratic accountability.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
