**The Supreme Court Weakens Federal Regulators by Overturning Decades-Old Chevron Decision**
In a landmark session on Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices signaled their support for diminishing the authority of federal regulators, potentially overturning the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision that has shaped American regulatory law for nearly four decades. This decision has far-reaching implications, affecting regulations on public health, workplace safety, environmental protection, and more.
The court’s deliberations centered on two cases brought by commercial fishermen challenging a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule. This rule mandates that herring fishermen pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake. However, the specifics of these cases were largely overshadowed by the broader question of whether to overturn the Chevron precedent.
The Chevron decision, established in 1984, has allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws, provided their interpretations are reasonable. This principle has been a cornerstone for upholding various regulations, from food and drug safety to environmental protections. Lower courts have frequently invoked Chevron to sustain such regulations, including the contested fisheries rule.
Leading the charge against Chevron were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointees of former President Donald Trump. Gorsuch questioned the consistency of Chevron’s application, suggesting that its frequent invocation by some judges and complete avoidance by others indicated a fundamental flaw. Kavanaugh argued that Chevron itself causes regulatory instability, with significant policy shifts occurring every time a new administration takes office.
The court’s decision may hinge on Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee. Barrett expressed concerns about a potential “flood of litigation” challenging long-standing regulations if Chevron were overturned. The court could opt for a middle ground, instructing lower courts to be less deferential to agencies without completely discarding Chevron. This would still make it more challenging to uphold regulations but would fall short of the sweeping changes sought by conservative and business interests.
The court’s three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, appeared to support maintaining Chevron. Kagan highlighted the impracticality of expecting Congress to draft laws with extreme specificity, especially given the rapid pace of technological change. Jackson warned that eliminating Chevron could lead to judges imposing their policy preferences when evaluating regulations, a concern echoed by Justice John Paul Stevens in his original Chevron opinion.
The current Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly scrutinized federal agencies’ powers. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have all questioned Chevron’s validity. Although the Supreme Court has not invoked Chevron since 2016, lower courts continue to rely on it.
In recent years, the conservative justices have struck down a vaccine mandate, blocked President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, and restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. This term, the court is also considering challenges to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Opponents of Chevron argue that it allows judges to rubber-stamp decisions made by government bureaucrats, undermining judicial authority and encouraging agency overreach. Roman Martinez, representing the fishing companies, argued that Chevron mandates judicial bias and threatens individual liberty by removing key checks on executive power.
Defending the Chevron decision, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar warned that overturning it would cause a “convulsive shock” to the legal system. She emphasized that Chevron appropriately acknowledges the expertise that federal agencies bring to interpreting complex statutes.
Environmental, health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, organized labor, and Democratic lawmakers have urged the court to uphold Chevron. Conversely, business groups, including those representing gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber, and home-building interests, support the fishermen’s challenge.
The justices heard two cases on the same issue because Justice Jackson recused herself from one case, having participated in it at an earlier stage as an appeals court judge. The full court is involved in the second case, which was added to the docket several months later. A decision is expected by early summer.
The conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn another significant precedent, following their recent decisions on abortion and other contentious issues. The cases, Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, challenge regulations requiring fishing boats to pay the salaries of federal inspectors. The broader argument is that no federal agency should issue regulations without explicit congressional authorization.
If the court overturns Chevron, agencies may become more hesitant to issue regulations where congressional laws are ambiguous, potentially leading to a surge in litigation over existing regulations. Given Congress’s limited capacity to pass detailed legislation for every agency rule, the courts would become the final arbiters of regulatory decisions.
Conservative justices have increasingly expressed hostility toward Chevron, favoring newer judicial doctrines like the “major questions doctrine,” which assumes Congress does not delegate authority to agencies on significant issues. This shift reflects the changing ideological makeup of the court, particularly its rightward swing since Trump’s appointments.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned why Chevron was initially popular, suggesting that concerns about judges’ policy views influencing their decisions have diminished over time due to the adoption of conservative legal interpretations. Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that the frequent policy changes resulting from new administrations create instability, a point countered by Justice Jackson, who emphasized the democratic nature of such changes.
The potential elimination of Chevron could allow judges to impose their policy judgments over those of federal agencies, affecting regulations on issues ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to antitrust law. The court’s decision will have profound implications for the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies.
A ruling on the two cases is expected before the end of June.
Source: Associated Press, The Washington Post
