U.S. Supreme Court reverses precedent that authorized federal agencies • NC Newsline

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned a precedent that for decades had limited the judiciary’s power to challenge executive branch regulations, a decision that was immediately criticized for potentially undermining the decisions of the agency’s scientists and experts.

The 6-3 and 6-2 decisions in two cases brought by fishing operators in New Jersey and Rhode Island upended a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rule and struck down a rule known as Chevron deference.

This precedent gave federal agencies broad authority to resolve any ambiguities left by Congress in federal statutes.

The Court’s six conservatives argued that the courts “routinely face statutory ambiguities” that have nothing to do with the powers of regulatory agencies, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

“Of course, where there is statutory ambiguity in such a case, that ambiguity is not a delegation to anyone, and the court is not in any way relieved of the obligation to interpret the statute independently,” Roberts wrote.

Under 40 years of precedent, courts abdicated their interpretive role and deferred to agencies, Roberts wrote.

But they shouldn’t do that, he added. Judges should use their own legal reasoning to make a fair decision.

“Instead, courts understand that such statutes, no matter how impenetrable, have — in fact, must — have one best meaning.”

1984 ruling overturned

This decision overturned the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts must rely on the expertise of federal agencies when considering legal challenges to a rule. The 1984 ruling significantly raised the bar for overturning the agency rule.

That precedent has strengthened executive power under presidents of both parties, but experts worry that undoing it would strip agencies of their authority to establish regulatory safeguards on a wide range of issues, including clean air and public health.

In a dissenting opinion, three liberals on the court (excluding Judge Ketanja Brown Jackson in one of the cases, who recused herself from the case because she heard it as an appellate court judge before joining the Supreme Court) said the majority erred by incorrectly understanding the role of the three branches of government.

Congress knows it cannot “write perfectly complete regulatory statutes,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in a dissenting opinion. The interpretation of these statutes is obvious, and Congress typically prefers a “responsible agency” to a court.

Agencies have more political responsibility and have more technical expertise in a given case than courts, she wrote.

“When it all comes together, deference to the agency seems almost the obvious choice,” Kagan wrote.

Kagan criticized the decision, calling it an attempt by the judiciary to seize power at the expense of the agency’s experts.

“The principle of judicial humility is giving way to the principle of judicial pride,” she wrote. “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive authority over every open issue – no matter how expert-based or policy-laden – including the importance of regulatory law.”

Liberals see security weakening

Liberal groups and elected Democrats feared the reversal would strip agencies of their authority to establish strong regulatory safeguards across a broad range of issues, especially climate and environmental rules.

“It undermines our government’s ability to protect us from the climate crisis, threats to worker safety, public health, clean air and water, safe medicines and food, a healthy financial system and more,” Manish Bapna, president of the environmental group NRDC Action, said in a statement Fund.

“Today’s reckless but unsurprising decision by this far-right court is a triumph for corporate polluters who seek to dismantle common-sense regulations that protect clean air, clean water and a livable future,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of advocacy group Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.

Rachel Weintraub, executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group that advocates for strong federal regulations, said in an interview before the decision that Chevron’s deference allowed for a range of regulations affecting consumer safety, labor, environmental protection and other issues.

“The important role that government plays in ensuring the health and safety of our families and the fairness of our markets could be called into question in this case,” she said.

The ruling strips authority from experts on a specific subject of a federal regulation — for example, traffic engineers at the Department of Transportation, disease experts at the Food and Drug Administration or scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency — and hands it to a federal justice authority, Weintraub said .

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, called the ruling a gift to polluters and the fossil fuel industry.

“For 40 years, Congress has passed laws with the understanding that interpretation of those laws is in the hands of the courts, but implementation is in the hands of the scientific and policy experts in our federal agencies,” Grijalva said in a statement.

“But now, thanks to this extremist takeover, our most basic protections will be available to individual judges — many of whom are far-right ideologues — regardless of their lack of expertise or political agenda.”

Conservatives praise withdrawal

Congressional Republicans and conservative activists praised the decision for weakening state administration, saying it would restore power to the legislature.

“The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to make laws,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a statement. “After four decades of deference to Chevron, the Supreme Court today made clear that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to seize that power for itself.”

Rep. Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, said Friday’s ruling should prompt Congress to write stricter laws.

“Congress has shirked its legal responsibilities for far too long, and today’s ruling puts us back at the forefront when it comes to rulemaking and regulatory authority,” Westerman said in a written statement. “We will no longer allow federal agencies to provide details about the policies we implement.”

Roman Martinez, a lawyer representing Rhode Island fishing operators, called the ruling “a victory for individual liberty and the Constitution.”

“The court has taken an important step to stop the unlawful takeover of federal agencies and preserve the separation of powers,” Martinez said in a statement released by conservative public relations firm CRC Advisors. “In the future, judges will be expected to faithfully, impartially, and independently interpret the law, regardless of the government.”

There are no plans to reopen old cases

In the majority opinion, Roberts said the court had no plans to reopen the cases decided by Chevron “despite the change in our interpretive methodology.”

Even before Friday’s decision, the court had been using Chevron less often. During oral arguments, Roberts cited a study that found the court had cited the precedent sparingly over the past 14 years.

The Court’s conservative majority has demonstrated a willingness to move away from deference toward agency decision-making, demanding more explicit congressional instructions.

For example, in the 2022 case West Virginia v. EPA, the court ruled that the EPA lacks authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Daniel Wolff, a lawyer specializing in administrative law at Crowell & Moring, downplayed the impact that this ruling will have on the administrative state.

Congress sometimes explicitly directs agencies to regulate crafts, and those rules will still be held to the same standards in which they were reasonably written, Wolff said in an interview before the decision.

He added that principles based on solid legal and statutory foundations will survive under both standards.

“Putting out Chevron will simply mean that agencies won’t get the benefit of the doubt in the event of a tie,” Wolff said. “They have to come to the court and convince the court that they understand the statute better.”

Fishing operators

The cases that were settled Friday were brought by New Jersey and Rhode Island herring operators who challenged a NOAA rule requiring operators to pay federal monitors who regularly join fishing boats to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

Fishing operators say the rule has forced them to hand over up to 20% of their profits.

After a lower court cited Chevron’s opinion and ruled in NOAA’s favor, oral arguments in the Supreme Court in January focused almost exclusively on Chevron.