Conservative Supreme Court justices on Wednesday voiced support for weakening the power of federal regulators, but it was not clear whether a majority would overturn a major 40-year-old decision. Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in front of a court that, like the rest of the federal judiciary, was remade during Donald Trump’s presidency by conservative interests that were motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion.
Quick Read
- Focus on Regulatory Powers: The Supreme Court heard arguments questioning the 1984 Chevron decision, which grants federal agencies power to interpret ambiguous laws.
- Potential Impact: Overturning the decision could significantly weaken federal regulatory authority over various sectors.
- Trump-Era Influence: The court’s conservative majority, shaped by Trump’s appointees, is seen as more inclined to limit federal regulatory powers.
- Cases Involved: The cases before the court involve commercial fishermen challenging a fee requirement, but broader regulatory issues took center stage.
- Justice Gorsuch’s Criticism: Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Chevron’s inconsistent application among judges.
- Kavanaugh’s View: Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Chevron contributes to regulatory instability with changes in presidential administrations.
- Concerns about Overturning Chevron: Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concerns about the consequences of discarding Chevron, such as empowering judges as “uber-legislators.”
- Liberal Justices’ Stance: The court’s liberal justices seemed inclined to uphold Chevron, emphasizing judicial restraint in evaluating regulations.
- Conservative Skepticism: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have previously questioned Chevron.
- Recent Conservative Rulings: The court has recently limited federal agencies’ powers in various significant cases.
- Arguments Against Chevron: Opponents argue that it leads to excessive judicial deference to government bureaucrats and unfair agency advantage in litigation.
- Biden Administration’s Defense: The administration defended Chevron, warning of a “convulsive shock” to the legal system if overturned and emphasizing agencies’ technical expertise.
- Stakeholder Opinions: Environmental, health, civil rights, and labor groups support Chevron, while business and conservative interests oppose it.
- Jackson’s Recusal in One Case: Justice Jackson is recused from the New Jersey case due to prior involvement as an appeals court judge.
The Associated Press has the story:
Supreme Court wrestles with major challenges to federal regulators’ power
Newslooks- WASHINGTON (AP) —
Conservative Supreme Court justices on Wednesday voiced support for weakening the power of federal regulators, but it was not clear whether a majority would overturn a major 40-year-old decision.
Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in front of a court that, like the rest of the federal judiciary, was remade during Donald Trump’s presidency by conservative interests that were motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion.
The court heard three and a half hours of arguments in two challenges brought by commercial fishermen to a fee requirement, though the facts of their cases were barely discussed in the courtroom.
Instead, the focus was on whether the court should overturn the 1984 case colloquially known as Chevron, which courts have relied on to uphold a wide range of regulations, including on the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.
Lower courts used the Chevron decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake.
Two of Trump’s appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh led the attack on the Chevron decision, which says that when laws aren’t crystal clear, federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details as long as they come up with a reasonable interpretation.
Gorsuch noted that some judges invoke the Chevron doctrine frequently and others, not at all. “Shouldn’t that be a clue that something needs to be fixed here?” Gorsuch asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the decision on behalf of the Biden administration.
When Prelogar talked about the shock to the legal system that would result from overturning such an important precedent, Kavanaugh suggested that Chevron is to blame for the regulatory flip-flops that happen when a president of one party replaces a president of the other.
“The reality of how this works is that Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years whenever a new administration comes in,” Kavanaugh said.
The outcome seems likely to come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s third appointee. Barrett sounded worried about an avalanche of cases challenging long-standing regulations that might result from overturning Chevron.
The court’s three liberal justices seemed like sure votes to preserve the decision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said getting rid of Chevron could empower judges to rule in favor of their own policy preferences when evaluating regulations.
“I’m worried about the courts becoming uber-legislators,” Jackson said.
That was a concern that Justice John Paul Stevens voiced in his opinion for the court in 1984, explaining why they should play a limited role. The court ruled 6-0, with three justices recused.
“Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of government,” Stevens wrote.
But the current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, along with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have questioned the Chevron decision.
In recent years, conservatives have shot down a vaccine mandate and Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, and also restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to fight climate change by regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
This term, the justices also are weighing challenges to aspects of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Opponents of the Chevron doctrine argue that judges apply it too often to rubber-stamp decisions made by government bureaucrats. Judges must exercise their own authority and judgment to say what the law is, the lawyers for the company that owns the Rhode Island-based Relentless and Persistence fishing boats told the court.
They also say that agencies effectively act as judges in their own cases. “It is patently unfair for a court to defer to an agency’s interpretation in cases where the agency itself is a litigant, before that same court, in the actual case at hand,” the lawyers wrote.
Defending the rulings that upheld the fees, the Biden administration said that overturning the Chevron decision would produce a “convulsive shock” to the legal system.
“Chevron gives appropriate weight to the expertise, often of a scientific or technical nature, that federal agencies can bring to bear in interpreting federal statutes,” Prelogar wrote in a Supreme Court filing.
Environmental, health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, organized labor and Democrats on the national and state level are urging the court to leave the Chevron decision in place.
Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups are among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Conservative interests that also intervened in recent high court cases limiting regulation of air and water pollution are backing the fishermen as well.
The justices heard two cases on the same issue because Jackson is recused in one case, from New Jersey. She took part in it at an earlier stage when she was an appeals court judge. The full court is participating in the case from Rhode Island, which the justices added to their docket several months later.
