This year the Supreme Court ruled on several consequential cases. One significant decision was related to the Chevron Deference, or Chevron Doctrine, where the Court decided to restrict the power and actions of federal agencies. One writer suggested that this decision will not reduce the amount of federal legislation, but it will limit the power of agencies to write the legislation, and that responsibility will now rest with Congress.
History
The original decision was made as a result of a 1984 landmark case:
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. . . gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it ‘fundamentally misguided.’
By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled this decision.
Flawed Ruling
Chief Justice John Roberts weighed in on a conflict with the Chevron Doctrine:
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion of the court, argued Chevron 'defies the command of' the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal administrative agencies.
He said it 'requires a court to ignore, not follow, 'the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.''
Further, he said it 'is misguided' because 'agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.'
Still, there were dissenting opinions on the case. Justice Elena Kagan believed that the details of legislation should be written by the agencies:
‘In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,’ Kagan wrote.
She added that the decision puts the courts at the center of a wide variety of policy issues, ranging from climate change to artificial intelligence.
‘The Court has substituted its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environmental Protection Agency; and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education,’ Kagan wrote.
Experts at What?
The question that arises for this argument is the degree to which agency bureaucrats are experts in any given field and better equipped than members of Congress to write the legislation. (Congress is also permitted to seek input on legislation design from experts inside or outside of government.) Also, using experts does not guarantee that a piece of legislation will be free of partisanship. The Justices also have access to experts, if technical expertise is required.
The cases that came before SCOTUS this year were Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, challenging a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service:
The agency had required the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing.
The agency stopped the monitoring in 2023 because of a lack of funding. While the program was in effect, the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.
After two federal courts of appeals rebuffed challenges to the rules, two sets of commercial fishing companies came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.
The cases were limited to addressing the Chevron Doctrine, and were successful.
And on a personal note, one of the fishermen participating in the lawsuit had this to say:
Bill Bright, a Cape May, New Jersey-based fisherman who was part of the lawsuit, said the decision to overturn Chevron would help fishing businesses make a living. ‘Nothing is more important than protecting the livelihoods of our families and crews,’ Bright said in a statement.
Balance of Power
The rollback of Chevron is an encouraging example of limiting the power of government, especially at the bureaucratic level, and of clarifying the separation of powers. The long-term effects will be fascinating to watch, as we observe how Congress writes its own legislation without delegating it to the agencies; the effect on Executive Actions and the degree with which they are used may also be affected.
At Convention of States, one major focus is to limit government overreach, and its ongoing intrusion on the life of citizens. The Supreme Court is beginning to show its resistance to rules and regulations that do not serve the country well, as it has reversed a number of Executive Orders, including mandates on the Covid-19 vaccines and student loan forgiveness.
We’re beginning to take our country back!
