Supreme Court to Review Second Challenge to Administrative State Powers
The Supreme Court Takes on Second Case That Could Limit Bureaucracy’s Power
The Supreme Court has made a significant decision to hear a case that could potentially challenge a legal doctrine supporting a federal rule requiring fishing companies to pay for government monitoring of their catch. This move could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power among Congress, executive agencies, and the judiciary.
The case, Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, will be argued in January 2024 alongside a similar case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The court’s ruling could potentially curtail the authority of the modern administrative state, which critics argue has become an illegitimate fourth branch of government.
Related Stories
The case challenges the Chevron deference doctrine, established in 1984, which grants executive agencies deference in interpreting statutes unless Congress has explicitly stated otherwise. Critics argue that this doctrine gives unelected regulators excessive power to shape policy beyond the intentions of Congress.
The petitioning fishing companies argue that the federal rule requiring them to pay for human monitors aboard their vessels is unjustified and exceeds the authority granted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. They compare it to motorists being forced to pay for state troopers to monitor their speed.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case has been welcomed by the petitioners’ attorneys, who hope to reverse the lower courts’ rulings and eliminate the bias in favor of bureaucracy that the Chevron deference doctrine imposes on citizens.
The case has attracted attention due to its potential impact on the balance of power and the ongoing debate over the role of regulatory agencies in serving the public interest. The court’s ruling could reshape the relationship between Congress, executive agencies, and the judiciary, and redefine the limits of bureaucratic authority.
It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on this case, but its decision to take it on indicates a willingness to reexamine the Chevron deference doctrine and potentially limit the power of the administrative state.
What potential impact could the Supreme Court’s ruling in these cases have on the regulatory landscape and the relationship between the bureaucracy, Congress, and the judiciary
Deral Government
The legal doctrine at the heart of the case is known as the “chevron deference,” which gave federal agencies broad discretion in interpreting ambiguous laws. Under this doctrine, courts have often deferred to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, as long as it is reasonable. However, critics argue that this has led to an overreach of bureaucratic power, enabling unelected officials to create and enforce regulations without sufficient oversight from Congress or the judiciary. Relentless Inc., a fishing company located in the Gulf of Mexico, and Loper Bright Enterprises, based in the Gulf of Maine, are both challenging the federal rule requiring them to fund government monitoring of their catch. They argue that the rule is an unconstitutional delegation of power to executive agencies and that it violates their right to due process. If successful, this case could potentially invalidate similar regulations and limit the authority of executive agencies. These cases come at a critical time when the role of bureaucracy in shaping policy is being widely debated. The growth of the administrative state over the past century has raised concerns about the erosion of democratic accountability and the concentration of power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. Critics argue that executive agencies have taken on quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles, effectively making and enforcing laws without the necessary checks and balances of the other branches of government. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these cases indicates a willingness to reexamine the deference given to executive agencies and to revisit the balance of power between the branches of government. If the court decides to limit the Chevron deference or strike it down altogether, it would have a significant impact on the regulatory landscape and the relationship between the bureaucracy, Congress, and the judiciary. Proponents of the Chevron deference argue that it is necessary to allow agencies to interpret laws and respond to evolving circumstances without being overly constrained by the courts. They contend that agencies have the expertise and knowledge required to make informed policy decisions, and that requires some level of deference from the judiciary. However, opponents claim that this deference has gone too far, granting agencies excessive discretion and allowing them to bypass the traditional legislative process. The outcome of these cases may have profound implications for the future of administrative law and the relationship between the branches of government. It could reshape the powers of executive agencies, establish new standards for judicial review of agency actions, and redefine the balance of power among the branches. Legal experts and scholars are closely watching these cases and await the Supreme Court’s ruling in anticipation of the potential impact on the bureaucratic power and democratic governance. Ultimately, the decisions in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo have the potential to redefine the boundaries of bureaucratic power and restore a proper balance between democratic accountability and agency discretion. The Supreme Court’s involvement in these cases reflects a growing concern over the concentration of power in the hands of executive agencies and the need to ensure checks and balances within the administrative state. The ruling will undoubtedly shape the future of administrative law and have far-reaching implications for the relationship between Congress, executive agencies, and the judiciary.Fishing Rules Could Change in Gulf of Maine as Environmental Conditions Shift
Critics Warn Major New Rules for Fishing Waterways Could Leave Fishermen Floundering
" 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...