US Supreme Court invalidates Chevron’s deference rule, giving courts ability to overturn regulatory decisions over expert findings – JURIST

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that courts must exercise independent judgment when assessing an agency’s statutory authority. This invalidated the deference that had long been given to the interpretation of the agency’s mandate in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Thing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce considered regulating fishing. The petitioners are challenging the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require them to pay for observers required under the fisheries management plan. They argued that NMFS was not acting within its mandate under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

The Supreme Court did not decide the facts regarding Loper. However, these facts created an ambiguity in the legislation that allowed the court to overturn Chevron’s deference decision and remand Loper for further proceedings. In Chevron, the court held that “the Administrator’s interpretation… deserves deference” when it involves technical and complex reasoning to reconcile conflicting principles. Drifter the court disagreed, stating that “Chevron was a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”

In reaching this conclusion, the court reviewed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the legislation that defines the role of courts. The court found that Chevron deference is contrary to the APA, which states that a “court of review” is to “decide All significant legal issues.” The majority continued to discuss how the court consistently minimized the risk Chevron respect over time – they haven’t even applied the rule since 2016 – recognizing that its “justifying assumption is… fiction.”

The opposition tried to defend itself Chevron deference, stating that judges must defer to agencies with institutional knowledge because “judges are not experts in the field.” However, the majority affirms that the statutory authority of agencies is a matter of law and therefore deference to agencies is directly inconsistent with the APA.

Although the court’s decision in 2007 Drifter may conflict with look, decideS principle of judicial continuity, the court stated that in some cases the court must “correct (its) errors”. Despite this, the court still confirmed that the records of previous cases using Chevron respect (incl. Chevron same position), perhaps allaying concerns about a wave of new litigation on old issues.