Shapiro highlights significance of upcoming SCOTUS ruling
The Supreme Court’s Decision Could Shift Power Back to the Legislature
In a captivating podcast episode, Ben Shapiro, the Daily Wire Editor Emeritus, delved into the upcoming Supreme Court decision that could have a monumental impact on the balance of power in the United States. This decision has the potential to shift power away from federal agencies and back to the legislature, a development of immense significance.
The crux of the matter lies in the question of whether federal regulatory agencies possess the authority to regulate vast aspects of American life without facing constitutional scrutiny. Shapiro passionately explained, ”Are these regulations capable of withstanding constitutional examination, or do they crumble under the weight of such scrutiny?”
The Court found itself embroiled in a heated debate over the Chevron deference while considering two cases involving herring fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island who challenged federal rules mandating payment for at-sea monitors. Shapiro provided a concise breakdown:
Conservatives have been targeting a framework established in 1984 under the case Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council. This framework, known as Chevron deference, suggests that if Congress passes a law that lacks specificity, regulatory agencies can utilize their expertise to interpret the law’s intent. They can then create extensive regulations based on their interpretation, with the courts having no authority to intervene. The rationale behind this is that if Congress disagreed, they could pass new regulations to curtail the power of these agencies. However, they have not done so, leaving the courts unable to pass judgment on the actions of these regulatory bodies.
Shapiro highlighted the perverse incentive structure created by this framework, where Congress remains unaccountable for any negative consequences resulting from regulatory actions. He asserted, “It is the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold the balance of power and the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution. This is precisely why Chevron deference must be abolished.”
Recalling Justice Neil Gorsuch’s long-standing call to eliminate Chevron deference, Shapiro pointed out the stark contrast in views between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats tend to favor this framework as it aligns with their belief in a bureaucratic administrative government, where the legislative branch’s significance diminishes, and the executive branch wields extensive power. Shapiro traced this model back to Woodrow Wilson’s influence in the early 20th century.
Shapiro passionately argued against the notion that regulatory agencies should be immune to judicial scrutiny when interpreting statutes. He emphasized, “Granting such unchecked power to the executive branch undermines the principles of checks and balances in our government. Restoring a system where the legislature legislates, the executive executes, and the judiciary adjudicates would be the most effective way to restore credibility in our government.”
He further criticized the current state of affairs, where Congress is seen as incompetent in its legislative duties, the executive branch is deemed too powerful, and the judiciary is perceived as inactive. Shapiro concluded, “When each branch of government fulfills its intended role, credibility is restored. That’s why it would be a tremendous victory if the Supreme Court were to eliminate Chevron deference.”
What are the implications of weakening or overturning Chevron deference for the regulatory landscape and democratic governance in the United States
Aving individuals and businesses at the mercy of these agencies.
This deference has been disproportionately favorable towards administrative agencies, granting them an immense amount of power to shape and regulate various sectors of society. Critics argue that it undermines the separation of powers and weakens the oversight authority of Congress. The Supreme Court’s decision could potentially recalibrate this dynamic and restore the proper balance of power.
In the New Jersey and Rhode Island cases, the Court has the opportunity to reassess the validity of Chevron deference and the authority it grants to federal agencies. Shapiro emphasized the significance of this moment, stating, “This is an enormous issue because it deals with the extent to which the executive branch of the government can basically be delegated power without that power being explicitly vested in it by Congress.”
A shift away from Chevron deference would mean that courts would have a more active role in scrutinizing and interpreting the laws passed by Congress, especially in cases where the statutes are ambiguous or lacking in specificity. This would provide a crucial check on administrative agencies’ power, ensuring that their actions align with the Constitution and the intent of Congress.
If the Court decides to weaken or even overturn Chevron deference, it could lead to a significant shift in the balance of power in the United States. Power would be reasserted in the hands of the legislature, allowing elected representatives to have a more direct say in the regulatory landscape. This would enhance transparency, accountability, and the democratic process, as regulatory decisions would be subject to greater scrutiny and debate.
However, should Chevron deference prevail, it would reinforce the authority of administrative agencies to interpret and create regulations based on their own expertise, with limited oversight from the courts. This would perpetuate a system where unelected bureaucrats hold substantial power over various aspects of American life, potentially infringing on individual liberties and undermining the principles of democratic governance.
The outcome of these cases and the Supreme Court’s decision will have profound implications for the balance of power in the United States. It will shape the future of government regulation and who holds the authority to interpret and create laws.
As Shapiro concluded, “Ultimately, the question at stake here is how much democratic power we want vested in the hands of a relatively small number of experts who, while undoubtedly intelligent and well-meaning, are nonetheless operating without explicit democratic authorization.”
The Supreme Court’s decision has the potential to reshape the relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It is a momentous occasion that deserves careful consideration and public attention as the future of governmental power hangs in the balance.
" 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...