The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: Elderberry on January 18, 2024, 01:05:54 pm
-
SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 1/17/2024
It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current form. A majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.
The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. Although the doctrine was relatively noncontroversial when it was first introduced in 1984, in recent years conservatives – including some members of the Supreme Court – have called for it to be overruled.
The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases challenging a rule, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, that requires the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats. Applying Chevron, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law.
The fishing companies came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in on the rule itself but also to overrule Chevron. Roman Martinez, representing one group of fishing vessels, told the justices that the Chevron doctrine undermines the duty of courts to say what the law is and violates the federal law governing administrative agencies, which similarly requires courts to undertake a fresh review of legal questions. Under the Chevron doctrine, he observed, even if all nine Supreme Court justices agree that the fishing vessels’ interpretation of federal fishing law is better than the NMFS’s interpretation, they would still be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Such a result, Martinez concluded, is “not consistent with the rule of law.”
Arguing on behalf of the second group of fishing companies, Paul Clement echoed Martinez’s points. Emphasizing that his clients’ case “well illustrates the real world costs of the Chevron” doctrine for small businesses, he decried the doctrine as “hopeless ambiguous” and “reliance destroying.” The question in this challenge to the rule, he said should focus on what the best reading of the statute is.
Representing the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the justices to leave the Chevron doctrine in place, telling them that it has “deep roots in this Court’s jurisprudence.” Under the doctrine of stare decisis – the idea that courts should generally adhere to their prior cases – the court would need a “truly extraordinary justification” to overrule it, which the challengers do not have, she asserted.
More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/)
-
Chevron was a terrible ruling, with lots of "unforeseen consequences." The Obama Administration was the one that really abused it, when he ordered all the federal agencies to be creative, think outside the box, and mine all their existing "authorities," no matter how obscure, in order to get around Congress and force his "transformation" upon the country.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/obama.transition/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/obama-era-legacy-regulation.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/01/obama-scrub-existing-legal-authorities-to-take-executive-action-on-guns/
https://www.cato.org/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency
-
One big irony of the original SCOTUS decision is that it overturned an opinion written by Circuit Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg which sided against the EPA.
-
The sooner the better!
-
Here's a hoping. I'd love to shove some Cloward-Piven up the woke liberal tailpipe.