The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in several cases that could completely upend the way federal agencies regulate anything in the United States. At issue is a legal doctrine called “Chevron Deference,” which allows federal agencies to interpret laws designed to protect consumers, public health and the environment. Now, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority appears to be on the verge of overturning or limiting the scope of Chevron’s deference.
edge spoke with legal experts about what’s happening and what the Supreme Court’s Chevron deference ruling ultimately means for Americans. “The real question is how far can they go?” said Jody Freeman, director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University. “In fact, they could overturn this precedent. That could lead to considerable uncertainty and confusion.”
“In fact, they could overturn this precedent. That could lead to considerable uncertainty and confusion.”
What is the Chevron Doctrine?
Essentially, if there is a dispute over how to interpret language passed by Congress, it allows judges to defer to federal agencies when determining how to implement the law. Assume that the agency has more expertise on the matter than the federal judge assigned to the case.
Ian Fein, senior adviser to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, said the practice has been around since before the naming. After a 1984 case, it became known as the Chevron Doctrine, Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Interestingly, NRDC, an environmental organization, actually lost the case, and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling in favor of Chevron. It allowed the industry-friendly EPA of the Ronald Reagan era to insist on its own loose interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
But since then, Chevron’s deference has allowed agencies to take initiatives on issues that may not have been addressed by legislation, such as climate change and broadband access. This has sparked debates, for example, about how far the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and how far the FCC can go in enforcing net neutrality.
Why is the Supreme Court getting involved now?
Fein said that despite initial support from conservative groups, compliance with Chevron has recently become a target for industries pushing a deregulatory agenda. “Over the last decade or so, there’s been an effort to question that doctrine and overturn it,” Fein said. edge. During the Obama administration’s second term, Fein said, “we began to view overturning Chevron’s deference as a way to undermine the ability of federal agencies to enforce federal laws.”
Two cases have reached the Supreme Court that jeopardize long-standing Chevron principles: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Plaintiffs in both cases challenged a rule that requires fishing companies to pay for observers they are legally required to have on board ships to monitor their operations. They asked a judge to overturn Chevron’s ruling and were supported by other industry groups including Gun Owners of America and e-cigarette manufacturers.
“It cannot be overstated how broad and fundamental this principle is to the operation of our federal government.”
Erich Platt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, said in a statement last year: “Joe Biden and his predecessors used the broad powers given to them by Chevron to go after law-abiding people on multiple separate occasions. Gun owners.” “Americans have had enough of one man pursuing the rights guaranteed by our Constitution with a pen, and we urge the court to overturn Chevron’s decision.”
If they succeed, they could force an overhaul of the way the U.S. regulates industry — stripping power from federal agencies and placing more responsibility in the hands of federal courts.
“It cannot be overstated how broad and fundamental this principle is to the operation of our federal government,” Fein said. “It describes the basic rules or foundation of the system we have [operates] — Federal agencies and courts that enforce regulations and serve as backstops. “
What would happen if the Supreme Court decided to overturn Chevron?
“This is really going to create a period of confusion as federal courts are deciding what they think all these laws mean,” Freeman said. edge. “This could create a lot of inconsistency and confusion across agencies and regulated parties.”
Freeman was interviewed in full this Harvard Gazette This details how much confusion such a decision would cause for the courts:
Chevron didn’t matter to the Supreme Court, which largely ignored it. But it does matter to lower courts, which continue to use the two-step test to manage a flood of lawsuits challenging agency interpretations ranging from the most general to the most complex. When a statute is unclear, courts will consider whether an agency’s interpretation is sensible, reasonable, and consistent with the design of the statute. If so, the agency wins. Without Chevron, federal judges could be mired in complex legal interpretation issues that require scientific, economic or technical expertise. Policy choices that are more appropriate for agencies with research and information-gathering capabilities and a duty to consult with stakeholders will increasingly be made by federal judges, who have no expertise and do not know how to do these things.
Even Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged during oral arguments Wednesday that denying Chevron deference could be a “shock” to the legal system, though he downplayed the long-term impact of such a shock . He dismissed this, saying, “Every four or eight years when a new government takes office, whether it is communications law, securities law, competition law or environmental law, there will be an impact on the system.” New York Times Report.
While Chevron deference as we know it may not survive the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority, the justices could choose to set limits on when deference can be granted rather than jettison the principle entirely. “Regardless, I think in this moment it’s going to be harder for federal agencies to do the jobs they have to do,” Freeman said. When congressional gridlock becomes a major obstacle to passing legislation, the responsibility for taking action often falls on federal agencies.
So this is a big deal, right?
Yes. There is more to consider than fishing.
“This is going to be a very important decision for the balance of power between Congress, the president and the courts. That’s why the stakes are so high,” Freeman said. “It looks like the Supreme Court is gaining more and more power relative to the other two branches. We should be worried about that.”
The Supreme Court has made a series of recent decisions that have curtailed the power of federal agencies, in particular one decision that reinforced the “significant question” doctrine State of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. Under this doctrine, courts are not required to defer to federal agencies on matters of national significance that Congress has not expressly enshrined in legislation.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on Chevron’s compliance in late June.
from Tech Empire Solutions https://techempiresolutions.com/why-supreme-court-ruling-on-fishing-boats-could-change-everything/
via https://techempiresolutions.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment