Supreme Court limits power of regulatory agencies like FCC

Net neutrality

This decision could have a significant impact on two outstanding cases involving the Federal Communications Commission.

WASHINGTON, June 2024 — In a closely watched case, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal courts do not have to defer to decisions by regulatory agencies in disputes over the proper interpretation of vague laws passed by Congress.

By a majority decision of 6 to 2, the court annulled the so-called Chevron Doctrine, a 1984 Supreme Court precedent that required the judiciary to uphold agencies’ interpretations of statutes when the regulations contained ambiguous instructions or gaps that needed filling.

“Perhaps most importantly, Chevron the presumption is incorrect because agencies have no special authority to resolve statutory ambiguities. The courts do,” said the President of the Supreme Court John Robertswriting for the majority. “Chevron made a serious error in concluding that the investigation was fundamentally different simply because an administrative interpretation was involved.”

Chevron deference became controversial because it had the double effect of denying courts their historic role in deciding the meaning of the law and strengthening the power of administrative bodies that knew they rarely lost in court.

Joining Roberts’ opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo They were judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett KavanaughAND Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Elena Kagan He filed an objection, joined by the judges Sonia Sotomayor AND Ketanji Brown Jackson partly.

This decision could have a major impact on two ongoing cases involving the Federal Communications Commission.

New FCC digital discrimination rules included a disparate impact standard that could hold broadband providers liable for unintentional discrimination in their deployment of broadband infrastructure. The FCC rules are currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis.

Broadband ISPs also challenged the FCC’s net neutrality rules and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to stay enforcement until July 15.

In both cases, ISPs said the FCC acted based on a misinterpretation of federal regulations. Before Friday’s Supreme Court ruling The Chevron Doctrine would require courts to accept FCC rules if they were found to be reasonable rather than arbitrary or capricious.

Public Knowledge has published press release is critical of the court’s judgment. The progressive organization said the decision “threatens net neutrality.”

President of the Free State Foundation Randolph May issued a statement saying that “the practical effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper should be to curb overly aggressive statutory interpretations by agencies.”

Friday’s court decision was not a constitutional decision. It did not state that Chevron violated the Constitutional Amendment Clause, except that it was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. This means that Congress could pass legislation to restore The Chevron Doctrine. In fact, bills have been introduced on Capitol Hill to defend or repeal Chevron respect.

Although the majority of the Supreme Court concluded, Chevron estimate was “fundamentally wrong,” said its decision on Friday would not affect previous cases in which the agency’s rules were upheld under The Chevron Doctrine.

“By annulment Chevron …the court does not question previous cases that were based on Art Chevron “framework,” Roberts’ opinion said.