Republican lawmakers seek to curb federal agencies’ powers after Chevron decision – Deseret News

Regulations issued by federal agencies, not Congress, could be thrown out if a new bill co-authored by Utah Rep. Burgess Owens becomes law.

Following a landmark Supreme Court decision limiting the power of federal agencies, lawmakers have proposed a bill to roll back regulations enacted by those agencies unless Congress acts to uphold them.

The bill is called the Sunset Chevron Act and was co-sponsored by Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah.

What is Chevron Respect?

The Supreme Court recently overturned the so-called Chevron Doctrine. This legal doctrine held that if there is ambiguous law and an agency provides a reasonable interpretation of it, then the authority to interpret the law remains with the agency.

By abandoning the Chevron Doctrine, courts will have room for interpretation and Congress will have to pass more specific laws.

Owens, who supported the Supreme Court decision, said the Sunset Chevron Act restores the balance of power as the Founding Fathers envisioned it.

“For too long, executive agencies have exercised unchecked authority, resulting in regulations that affect Americans’ lives without adequate legislative oversight. This bill ensures that every rule that has the force of law is subject to the scrutiny and approval of Congress, whose rulemaking authority belongs to it,” Owens said. “By rolling back these agency actions unless confirmed by congressional action, we can correct past abuses and ensure that power remains in the hands of We the People — not unelected bureaucrats.”

Many Republican lawmakers, including members of Utah’s congressional delegation, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision because it reduces the power of the administrative state. These lawmakers have often made the constitutional argument that it is Congress’s job to make laws, and often when agencies make rules, they are encroaching on territory that should belong to Congress.

The bill, co-authored by Owens, would address situations where agencies may have gone beyond what Congress intended and would allow lawmakers to limit agencies’ power.

What the Chevron Sunset Act Says

The bill would require a list — whenever a federal court upholds an agency decision based on the Chevron ruling and it is not overturned, it would be added to the list.

This list would then be arranged in reverse chronological order by the date the agency issued the rule. Then, for each rule, the so-called expiration date would be calculated: in this case, the expiration date would be the last day on which the rule would apply.

Before the expiration date arrives, Congress can decide to pass legislation that targets what the provision was also intended to accomplish — or it can choose not to pass that legislation at all.

It’s important to note that the Chevron ruling doesn’t change whether Congress can choose to delegate authority to agencies. Congress can still pass laws that agencies have discretion to use in specific cases. However, it does mean that Congress will likely have to state the law when it doesn’t delegate that authority or discretion.

The Chevron Doctrine has been a decades-old precedent, so some of the regulations that the bill would affect are old. The bill sets a path to examine those decades of regulations.

Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., introduced the bill, which has the support of the National Taxpayer Union.

In a press release, Green cited a 2017 article published in the Michigan Law Review, describing it as an empirical study of how federal appellate courts applied the Chevron ruling in their cases.

The report found that courts upheld the agency’s interpretations 71% of the time and applied Chevron’s deference 77% of the time. Green said that allowed courts to “tilt favor toward bureaucrats rather than give ordinary Americans a fair chance at relief.”

Calling Chevron a “scourge on our constitutional system,” Green said Congress’s intent should be the most important factor in interpreting laws.

“Allowing the executive branch to twist or add to the law is unconstitutional,” Green said. “Both Congress and the courts need to take back their authority instead of allowing the executive branch to act ineptly.”