U.S. Supreme Court reverses precedent that empowered federal agencies • Rhode Island Current

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 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s rule and struck down a rule known as Chevron deference.

Whitehouse filed an amicus curiae brief in Loper exposing this case as the latest offshoot of a coordinated, anonymously financed, industry-led campaign to dismantle administrative agencies and concentrate power in the hands of right-wing judges.

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

The court’s six conservatives argued that courts “routinely encounter statutory ambiguities” that have nothing to do with the authority 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.

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.”

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.

The precedent has strengthened executive power under presidential administrations of both parties, but experts worry that reversing 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 (excluding Judge Ketanja Brown Jackson in one of the cases, who recused herself from the case because she had heard it as an appellate judge before joining the Supreme Court) said the majority erred by misunderstanding the role of the three branches of government.

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

Agencies have greater political responsibility and technical knowledge of a given matter than courts, she wrote.

“When you put it all together, agency deference seems almost an 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 hubris,” she wrote. “In one fell swoop, the majority today arrogates to itself exclusive authority over every open question—no matter how expert-based or politically charged—involving 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 weakens 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 Fund, wrote in statement.

“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 integrity of our markets could be undermined here,” she said.

The ruling strips the authority of experts who deal with a specific subject of a federal regulation — such as traffic engineers at the Department of Transportation, disease experts at the Food and Drug Administration or scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency — and gives it to a federal criminal 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 it is up to the courts to interpret those laws, but their implementation is in the hands of scientific and policy experts in our federal agencies,” Grijalva said in a statement.

“But now, thanks to this extremist power grab, our most basic protections will depend on the whim of individual judges — many of whom are far-right ideologues — regardless of their lack of expertise or political agenda.”

Conservatives hail return to politics

Congressional Republicans and conservative activists praised the decision to weaken the administrative state, saying it would restore power to the legislature.

“The Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to make laws,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a statement. “After four decades of deferring to Chevron, the Supreme Court made clear today 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 craft more stringent 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 acting on behalf of 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.”

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 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 shown a willingness to shift away from deference to agency decision-making, demanding more explicit instructions from Congress.

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

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

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

“Chevron’s withdrawal simply means the agencies won’t 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 have a better understanding of the statute.”

Fishing operators

The cases, which were decided Friday, were brought by New Jersey and Rhode Island herring fishery 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 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.