In two cases decided by the Supreme Court today, herring fishermen in Rhode Island and New Jersey challenged regulatory fees, saying they were never approved by Congress. They asked the court to reconsider or at least clarify the principles underlying its 1984 ruling Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Councilwhich requires judges to defer to federal agencies’ “permissible” or “reasonable” interpretations of “ambiguous” statutes.
Critics have long complained Chevron Deference enables bureaucrats to usurp judicial functions and systematically disadvantage the “little guy” in disputes with the arrogant administrative state. The Supreme Court today upheld that criticism in a 6-3 vote, rejecting the idea that agencies, not judges, should resolve ambiguities in the regulations in which they operate.
writing for most people Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of CommerceChief Justice John Roberts noted that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “embeds the traditional understanding of the judicial function under which courts must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions.” He said “respect Chevron The requirement for courts to review agency actions cannot be consistent with the APA.
this Chevron Roberts wrote that this principle “violates the APA’s mandate that a ‘reviewing court’ — rather than the agency whose conduct it reviews — is to ‘determine all relevant questions of law’ and ‘interpret…statutory provisions.'” “It requires the court to ignore, rather than follow, the interpretation that the court would reach if it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA… It requires the court to mechanically provide bundle Respect the agency’s interpretations, including those that are inconsistent over time. Worse, it forces courts to do so even if preexisting judicial precedent holds that the statute has other meanings, unless the prior court also happens to say the statute is “unambiguous.” This system is contrary to the time-honored practice set forth by the APA.
Roberts said the idea, endorsed by three dissenters, that the law’s ambiguity implicitly empowers federal agencies to address questions about their own powers is “misguided.” “As Chevron It itself notes that the ambiguity may be due to Congress’s inability to directly answer the question at hand, or even to “consider the question” with the necessary precision. In both cases, the ambiguity does not necessarily reflect Congress’s intent that the resulting interpretation issues be resolved by the agencies rather than by the courts.
Roberts noted that courts “often encounter legal ambiguities in cases that have nothing to do with the law.” Chevron“But “don’t throw up your hands just because ‘Congressional directives’ have allegedly been ‘exhausted,’ leaving a statutory ‘blank.'” Roberts said, “If the court, after applying all relevant interpretive tools, concludes that it is not best explanation, then it makes no sense to talk about a ‘permissible’ explanation,” he said. “The courts will do that.
power” i.e. “perhaps an occasion to abdicate in favor of the institution” At least suitable.
As Roberts points out, the very concept of “ambiguity” is ambiguous. “The defining characteristic of [Chevron‘s] “At the heart of the framework is the recognition of statutory ambiguity, which requires respect for the second step of the doctrine,” he wrote. “But the concept of ambiguity always eludes meaningful definition.” He said this difficulty makes Chevron “unfeasible,” leading to widespread disagreement among lower courts on the understanding of vagueness.
Contrary to what is insisted upon Chevron Promoting “stability,” Roberts writes
“It is difficult to see how anyone—including Congress—could reasonably expect the courts to rely on Chevron In any given situation,” consider “we constantly tinker and eventually give up. Chevron” and “Lower courts’ application has been inconsistent.Chevron Promoting unnecessary instability in the law, plunging those trying to plan around agency actions into a perpetual fog of uncertainty.
Addressing Rejection Concerns Chevron As Justice Elena Kagan warned in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, “ There could be massive disruption,” Roberts said. “We would not question the previous reliance on Chevron frame. Chevron itself – is
Still must comply with statutory requirements Decide Although we have changed the interpretation method.
The dispute at the heart of these cases shows how vulnerable Americans are to the whims of federal agencies with the power to create their own authority. The plaintiffs are family businesses who cannot easily bear the financial burden of not only having to make room on their narrow boats for observers who monitor compliance with fishing regulations, but also paying for this dubious privilege.
This cost, which accounts for about one-fifth of the annual revenue of these companies, undoubtedly adds insult to injury. Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Paul D. Clement, who represented the New Jersey plaintiffs, wrote: “The Framing generation was deeply annoyed by being forced to house British soldiers in dormitories, but even the British Nor was the unfortunate homeowner forced to personally pay the wages of the British soldiers.
Worse, Clement noted, the statute makes no mention of imposing such fees on herring boat operators in New England waters, although it does authorize them to conduct “certain North Pacific fisheries, limited access, within certain limits.” Privilege Programs and Foreign Fishing.” ” However, two federal appeals courts, the D.C. Circuit and the First Circuit, ruled that the unauthorized fees qualified Chevron respect. Today’s ruling overturns those decisions.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a longtime judge, issued the unanimous opinion. Chevron Critics point out that when administrative agencies are free to address questions about their legal powers, “the balance of justice systematically tilts in favor of the most powerful.” “Legal requirements may change with each election, and although the law does not,” he wrote, “people can only guess at their legal rights and responsibilities.”
Gorsuch illustrates this point by describing a series of confusing reversals in the regulation of broadband Internet services. Initially, he noted, “the court upheld an agency rule adopted by President George W. Bush’s administration because it was
Subject to a ‘reasonable’ interpretation of the statute. Officials replaced that rule with another one, “and that was all before President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration announced its intention to change course for the fourth time,” Gorsuch said, “not by determining what the law means.” to promote trust, but instead”Chevron Even if the regulations themselves remain the same, respect will bring continued uncertainty and drastic change.
Gorsuch added that this “continued uncertainty” is particularly burdensome for people like the plaintiffs in these cases. “Complex entities and their lawyers may be able to retain
Keep up with rule changes that affect their rights and responsibilities,” he wrote. “They may be able to lobby for new ‘reasonable’ agency explanations, or even capture the agencies that issue them. But ordinary people can’t do these things. They
It’s those who suffer the worst regulatory whiplash Chevron invite.
Gorsuch noted that these “ordinary people” include veterans seeking disability benefits and immigrants struggling to stay in the United States, as evidenced by cases he heard as an appeals court judge. He said that under “the Constitution, the APA and our longstanding precedent,” “agencies cannot invoke fictions concocted by judges to shake our nation’s commitment to individuals’ right to make fair arguments about what the law requires of them.” .
In short, Gorsuch said: Chevron “This is a serious anomaly in historical judicial practice” and “undermines core rule of law values, from the promise of fair notice to the promise of a fair hearing. Even by its own terms, it is proven It’s not going to work.” From the beginning, the entire project relied on an overuse of snippets and scattered statements with mixed messages. DecidedThe real lesson today is not that we must respect ChevronIt’s an ‘amazing development’, but it will definitely get involved.
Timothy Sandefur, associate dean for legal affairs at the Goldwater Institute, welcomed the funeral. “Today’s ruling overturns Chevron “The rule is a game changer – more precisely, it makes the game fairer for the American people,” he said in an emailed news release. free. Yet the administrative bureaucracy ignores this principle by making rules, prosecuting alleged violations, and subjecting people to so-called “hearings” where the rules that protect us in court do not apply… By opposing this principle and saying judges should exercise power based on their own independent judgment, the Supreme Court today took a step towards leveling the playing field between government bureaucrats and citizens.
