The Supreme Court is looking at yet another case that could have tremendous ramifications for liberty depending on how it rules. It could spell the end of a policy that has granted far too much power to federal agencies, which have not hesitated to abuse it.
The US Supreme Court is considering a case that could result in a rollback of the Chevron deference doctrine. Conservatives and libertarians have long criticized the doctrine for giving unelected regulators too much power to make policy, and several Supreme Court Justices have expressed skepticism of the doctrine. The case is expected to be heard in the new term that begins in October.
The case involves a challenge to a U.S. Commerce Department rule on fisheries inspectors that could alter the balance of power between Congress, executive agencies, and the nation’s judiciary according to a report from The Epoch Times. The case that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, Loper v. Raimondo, concerns a Department of Commerce rule that requires the owners of fishing vessels to pay for federal observers onboard to oversee operations and ensure compliance with federal regulations.
The petitioners in the case, represented by Paul Clement, former U.S. solicitor general, argue that the government mandate forces fishermen to pay the salaries of state-mandated officials “who take up valuable space on their vessels and oversee their operations,” and that Congress never authorized this requirement by statute.
The fishermen argue that the state misinterpreted the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to allow the “financially onerous … payment requirement” for vessels “unburdened by statutory caps.” The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, upholding the rule, but the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case suggests that it is considering narrowing the application of the Chevron deference doctrine that gives executive agencies wide latitude to interpret statutes unless Congress has spoken clearly to the contrary.
“The court’s ultimate ruling could alter the current balance of power between Congress, executive agencies, and the nation’s judiciary by tearing away at the legal underpinnings of the modern administrative state, which critics deride as an illegitimate fourth branch of government,” The Epoch Times noted.
The Chevron Doctrine is a principle of administrative law that has been widely used in US courts for over three decades. It is named after the landmark 1984 US Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which established the doctrine’s basic framework.
The Chevron Doctrine provides a framework for courts to determine how much deference to give to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute that the agency administers. The doctrine consists of two main steps.
First, the court must determine whether the statute is ambiguous or unclear. If the statute is unambiguous, the court must interpret it without deference to the agency’s interpretation.
If the statute is determined to be ambiguous, the court goes on to the second step, which is to determine whether the agency’s interpretation is a reasonable representation of the statute. If the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, the court will defer to it and uphold it, even if the court might have interpreted it differently
Over the years, the Chevron Doctrine has been applied in several high-profile cases. One example is King v. Burwell, when the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in a 6-3 decision. The court’s opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, relied on the doctrine.
The court held that the Internal Revenue Service’s interpretation of the ACA to allow subsidies on both state and federal exchanges was a reasonable interpretation of the statute, even though the text of the ACA seemed to limit subsidies to state exchanges.
The decision in King v. Burwell was a significant victory for the Obama administration and proponents of the ACA. The ruling also provided some clarity and stability to the implementation of the ACA, which had faced numerous legal and political challenges since its passage in 2010.
The Chevron Doctrine has been the subject of much debate and controversy ever since it was established. Supporters of the doctrine argue that it provides a framework for courts to defer to the expertise of administrative agencies and allows for a more consistent and predictable approach to administrative law.
Proponents also argue that it helps to promote accountability and transparency by requiring agencies to provide a reasoned explanation for their interpretations of statutes and regulations.
However, critics of the Chevron Doctrine argue that it gives too much deference to agencies, which can lead to them expanding their own authority at the expense of individual rights and the separation of powers.
In the case of National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sought to regulate the provision of broadband Internet services by cable companies, claiming that such services were subject to the same regulatory requirements as telecommunications services.
The cable companies challenged the agency’s interpretation, arguing that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not authorize the FCC to regulate broadband Internet services provided by cable companies. However, the Supreme Court deferred to the agency’s interpretation of the statute under Chevron, holding that the statute was ambiguous and that the FCC’s interpretation was reasonable.
As a result of the Court’s decision, cable companies were required to comply with the FCC’s regulatory requirements, despite the fact that the Telecommunications Act did not expressly authorize the regulation of broadband Internet services. The decision was controversial, with critics arguing that it gave the FCC broad authority to regulate the Internet and infringed on the rights of individual companies and consumers.
Opponents also argue that it can lead to inconsistency and unpredictability in the law, as different courts may interpret the same statutes and regulations differently depending on the agency’s interpretation.
Anyone who has read my work for any length of time knows where I stand on this. I believe any ruling that limits the government’s power and prevents federal agencies from expanding their authority is a benefit to liberty. There are likely tons more cases in which these agencies have overstepped their boundaries using this doctrine. Hopefully, the court will make the right call in this instance.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.
