The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case this week that could lead to a ruling that would dramatically take back the powers of federal agencies and put many consumer and environmental protections at risk.
The question is whether courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretations when a law can have multiple meanings, a practice known as Chevron deference.
As a practical matter, this means that the court will weaken the presidential administration's ability to propose regulations aimed at combating pollution and climate change or protecting consumers without explicit approval from Congress. It means that you are considering what to do.
Such a feat would advance long-standing goals of anti-regulatory interests, hopes of which have been heightened by recent skepticism of Chevron by some conservative judges. This case is one of several important cases related to the administrative state heard by the High Court this term.
“This is a campaign to undermine the government's ability to protect people from modern-day dangers such as unsafe air and water, unsafe medicines and food, and economic security,” said senior David Doniger. Strategic Director for the Climate and Clean Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
“These protections require a government with some capacity to respond effectively, and this incident destroys that ability,” Doniger added.
Chevron's respectability stems from a lawsuit Doniger himself argued during the Reagan administration.
A nearly 40-year-old case law that is the bedrock of administrative law has given federal agencies broad discretion to enact regulations in areas where Congressional law is ambiguous.
Anne Gorsuch was then-President Ronald Reagan's first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when Doniger and NRDC filed their objections. Her son, Justice Neil Gorsuch, could now be part of the majority that destroys the Chevron standard.
In two separate cases scheduled for argument Wednesday, the justices will hear challenges to the same fishing regulations that offer the most hope for overturning Chevron.
Gorsuch and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas have publicly questioned the future of the precedent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is also considered a skeptic, but the views of some new justices, particularly Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, are more uncertain.
For several months, the court heard only one of the cases, Roper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, brought by four family-owned Atlantic herring fisheries represented by conservative legal luminary Paul Clement. I was planning to.
But Ms. Jackson recused herself from the case because she was present when the dispute was previously heard in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court later added a second nearly identical case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. In this case, lawyers from the conservative New Civil Liberties Union (NCLA) challenged the same rule on behalf of a Rhode Island-based fishing fleet. All nine judges are scheduled to hear the case.
“The court allowed their exploitation.” [Chevron] in a way that makes everyone perform badly in our tripartite government,” said NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione, the plaintiffs' attorney of record.
“And the reason I say that is to avoid clearly stating in statute what Congress is doing,” Vecchione added. “They put in the main points. And they think that whatever the administration does, they can take credit for it if they like. If they don't like it, they can say, 'Oh, no. I couldn't have predicted that would happen!''
Defenders of the Chevron lawsuit argue that when the law is unclear, federal agencies with experts should make decisions.
“This principle recognizes that there is expertise within government on whether food is safe, how to limit pollution from power plants, and how to ensure the safety of planes and automobiles. It means that there are hard-working people who have acquired these skills.” said Andrew Mergen, a professor at Harvard Law School's Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic.
“This doctrine promotes a system where experts fill in the gaps, and the alternative proposed by the Chevron alternative is for judges to fill in the gaps,” he said. “Judges who aren't trained as pilots don't want to fly their own planes.”
However, opponents argue that this would give too much power to the executive branch and undermine the Constitution's principle of separation of powers.
“The Constitution provides that judicial power is vested in…judges, and it is an important separation of powers principle that only judges have that power,” said Thomas, a fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Berry said.
Berry said the power to interpret the law should rest solely with judges.
“Congress can pass a bill with one policy goal, and then a president from a different party or from a different ideology can effectively overturn it,” he said. “That would undermine democracy. A judge's job is simply to interpret the law faithfully.”
Michael Berger, executive director of Columbia University's Sabin Center on Climate Change Law, said overturning Chevron's proposal could have a “chilling effect” on federal agencies.
“Government agencies will be less willing to experiment with regulations and address new problems without concrete direction from Congress,” he said. “It will probably reduce the amount of regulation and the scope and scope of regulation.”
He added that, at least in the short term, legal challenges to existing regulations would “likely” succeed without deference.
The Biden administration may defend this principle before the Supreme Court, but in theory deference, or lack thereof, would apply equally to rules brought forward by Democratic and Republican administrations.
“And I enjoyed it,” Eugene Scalia, President Trump's former labor secretary, said of Chevron in a recent article. Wall Street Journal editorial.
Proponents of overturning the doctrine point out that the Supreme Court has ignored Chevron deference in recent years by solidifying its stricter stance on Chevron deference or resolving cases on other grounds.
“This doctrine is in its final stages,” Vecchione said. “This is more of a way out of that misery than some sort of 'Oh, we've got to do away with this very robust doctrine.' The court has seen this trickle down to various circuit courts. I think the circuit court has made it clear what the issue is.”
Clement, who represents the other group of plaintiffs, cited in court papers an appellate judge's ruling that likened Chevron to a “case that must not be named” and that the judges have been invoking Chevron since 2016. He said he had not. Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series.
“The question, therefore, is less about whether this court should reverse Chevron and more about whether the news should be released to lower courts and the public,” Clement wrote. “The reality is that Chevron has already proven itself unworkable, and its corrosive influence on our separation of powers has been going on long enough. The government's plea to maintain it is beside the point.”
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
