The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a 40-year-old precedent that has long been a target of conservative critics who argue it bolsters the power of federal bureaucrats. The ruling, which involved a challenge to a fisheries regulation, effectively nullifies the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. That landmark ruling had established that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, thereby granting regulatory flexibility to these agencies.
In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative justices formed the majority, while the liberal justices dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, declared, “Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” He emphasized that going forward, lower courts “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”
Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, criticized the ruling as a “bald assertion of judicial authority” that undermines the specialized knowledge of agencies. She warned that the decision places courts at the apex of the administrative process, potentially affecting a wide range of regulatory areas, from climate change to healthcare and financial systems.
The Chevron decision was initially seen as a victory for the deregulatory efforts of the Reagan administration, providing flexibility to both Democratic and Republican administrations in implementing new regulations. However, over the years, it became a point of contention for conservatives who argued it gave too much power to agency bureaucrats. Environmental activists and other groups on the left defended Chevron, citing its importance in addressing issues like climate change.
Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, expressed concern that the ruling undermines vital protections for clean air, water, and climate policies. She argued that it serves the interests of powerful polluters at the expense of public health and environmental safety.
The case that led to this landmark decision involved a federal regulation requiring fishing vessel operators to help fund the cost of data collection for fishery conservation and management. The challengers, operators of fishing vessels in the Atlantic herring fishery, argued that the National Marine Fisheries Service lacked the authority to issue the regulation under the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. They contended that the cost of up to $710 a day for independent observers would be burdensome for small owner-operators.
Roman Martinez, a lawyer for the challengers, hailed the court’s decision as a major step in preserving the separation of powers and curbing unlawful agency overreach. The ruling is part of a broader trend in which the conservative justices have targeted the power of federal agencies. This term alone, the court has addressed several cases challenging federal agency authority, including a ruling on in-house Securities and Exchange Commission adjudications.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—has shown a willingness to overturn long-standing precedents. This decision follows other significant rulings, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the end of affirmative action in higher education.
The court’s decision to overturn Chevron is likely to lead to increased legal challenges to federal regulations, absent more specific congressional action. Critics argue that the ruling will make it more difficult for federal agencies to implement laws passed by Congress, as it shifts interpretive power from agencies to the courts.
Justice Kagan, in her dissent, accused the conservative majority of usurping the power granted to agencies by Congress to make policy decisions. She warned that the ruling would place judges at the center of the administrative process on a wide range of issues, from environmental challenges to healthcare and financial systems.
The Biden administration had urged the Supreme Court to uphold Chevron deference, calling it a “bedrock principle of administrative law.” Justice Department lawyers argued that federal agencies, with their expertise and experience, are better suited to interpret statutes and respond to ambiguities in the law.
The Chevron doctrine has been applied by lower courts in thousands of cases and has been invoked by the Supreme Court itself to uphold agency interpretations of statutes at least 70 times. However, Chief Justice Roberts clarified that the decision to overturn Chevron would not call into question those prior cases.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal regulatory power. It comes at a time when the court is also considering other cases involving the authority of federal agencies, such as the constitutionality of internal legal proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ authority to outlaw bump stocks.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron precedent marks a significant shift in the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. It reflects the court’s conservative majority’s broader agenda to limit federal regulatory authority and could lead to increased legal challenges to agency regulations in the future.
Source: NBC News, CBS News, NPR
