The Supreme Court will review officials’ authority to enforce regulations.
Chevron Deference: A Battle Over Regulatory Power
“Chevron deference” may sound like a simple choice between gas stations, but it holds much more significance. It is a foundational decision by the Supreme Court that has governed the extent to which federal agencies can issue business regulations for nearly four decades.
However, this could all change with a Supreme Court case set to be heard this fall. The case questions the application of regulatory precedents established in the 1984 case Chevron v. NRDC. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws enacted by Congress and the president.
A Battle of Perspectives
Critics of the Chevron doctrine see this upcoming Supreme Court case as an opportunity to rein in federal bureaucrats and address regulatory overreach. On the other hand, defenders worry that a conservative majority on the court may undermine expertly crafted regulations that serve the public interest.
What was once a topic for law professors has now become a rallying cry for elected Republicans. House Republicans, in particular, are using the Chevron doctrine as a cautionary tale of big government.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has filed an amicus for plaintiffs in the upcoming Chevron case. The case involves New Jersey-based herring fishermen challenging a federal regulation that they believe limits their catch. McCarthy argues that the Chevron framework gives too much power to unelected bureaucrats and calls for a restoration of the separation of powers.
A “David vs. Goliath” Battle
The New Jersey fishermen’s case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, centers around a provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Act that requires fishing companies to cover the salary of a government observer onboard during certain fishing expeditions. The fishermen argue that this provision is not within the enforcement purview of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Represented by Paul Clement, a veteran Supreme Court advocate, the fishermen are fighting against a doctrine that they believe favors powerful federal agencies over small-business owners. Ryan Mulvey, co-counsel for the fishermen, describes the case as a “classic David vs. Goliath story.”
Clement argues that Congress should be responsible for grappling with complex problems, as it leads to more durable and permanent solutions compared to executive orders that can easily be undone by changing administrations.
The Battle Over Chevron
The Supreme Court agreed to take up the New Jersey fishermen’s case after a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the federal regulation. The Chevron doctrine has its fair share of allies and defenders who believe that federal agencies possess the necessary expertise to make complex policy decisions.
However, critics of Chevron argue that Capitol Hill, not federal agencies, should be the ones deciding complicated regulatory questions. They believe that Congress, with the supervision of the president, should carry out laws and policies according to their best good-faith interpretations.
The Future of Regulatory Power
If Chevron were to be overturned or weakened, it would significantly impact the administrative state. Recent Supreme Court decisions have already limited the authority of federal agencies, signaling a shift away from the typical deference to Chevron.
The Raimondo case is expected to be argued in the fall, with a decision to follow in 2024. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between federal agencies and Congress.
" 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
Now loading...