The U.S. Supreme Court deals a blow to federal regulatory powers in a case involving New Jersey fishing operators

by Jacob Fischler, New Jersey Monitor

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned a precedent that for decades limited the judiciary’s power to challenge executive orders. The decision 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 challenged a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rule and invalidated a rule known as the Chevron deference rule.

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

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 delegated to anyone, and the court is in no way relieved of its obligation to interpret the statute independently,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts wrote that under 40 years of precedent, courts abdicated their interpretive role and placed the matter in the agency’s hands.

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

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

The 1984 ruling was overturned

The decision overturned a 1984 Supreme Court ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, that held that courts must rely on federal agency expertise when considering a legal challenge to a rule. The 1984 ruling significantly raised the bar for striking down an 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, the court’s three liberals — not including Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in one of the cases after she recused herself because she had argued the case as an appellate judge before joining the Supreme Court — said the majority erred by misunderstanding the roles of the three branches of government.

Congress knows it cannot “write perfectly complete regulatory statutes,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent. The interpretation of these statutes is obvious, and Congress usually prefers a “responsible institution” rather than a court.

Agencies are more politically accountable and have greater technical knowledge of a given issue than the courts, she wrote.

“When you put it all together, agency deference seems almost an obvious choice,” Kagan wrote.

Kagan subsequently criticized the decision as a power grab by the judiciary at the expense of agency experts.

“The principle of judicial humility is giving way to the principle of judicial hubris,” she wrote. “In one fell swoop, the majority now arrogates to itself exclusive authority over every open question—no matter how expertly informed or politically charged—that involves the meaning 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 sensible regulations that protect clean air, clean water, and a livable climate future,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.

Rachel Weintraub, executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group that advocates for stringent federal regulations, said in an interview before the decision that Chevron’s deference allowed a series 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, as well as the integrity of our markets, could be called into question here,” 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 of Representatives 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 at the whim of 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 government, saying it would restore power to the legislative branch.

“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 pandering to Chevron, the Supreme Court made clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to seize this 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 of 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 took a major step to end the unlawful capture of power by federal agencies and preserve the separation of powers,” Martinez said in a statement distributed by the conservative public relations firm CRC Advisors. “In the future, judges will be obliged to interpret the law faithfully, impartially and independently, without deference to the government.”

No plans to reopen old cases

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

Even before Friday’s decision, the court used Chevron less frequently. During oral arguments, Roberts cited a study that found the court had cited 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 did not have authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Daniel Wolff, an administrative lawyer at Crowell & Moring, downplayed the impact the ruling would have on the administrative state.

“Congress sometimes expressly directs agencies to create regulations, and those regulations will be held to the same standards by which they were reasonably written,” Wolff said in an interview before the decision.

In his opinion, principles based on solid legal and statutory foundations will survive for both standards.

“Chevron’s withdrawal simply means that the agencies will not have the benefit of the doubt in the event of a tie,” Wolff said. “They have to come to court and convince the court that they understand the statute better.”

Fishing operators

The cases decided Friday were brought by New Jersey and Rhode Island herring fishery operators who challenged a NOAA rule requiring operators to pay federal inspectors 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 the lower court relied on Chevron’s deference in ruling in NOAA’s favor, oral arguments before the Supreme Court in January focused almost exclusively on Chevron.

Related