Chevron deference, which empowers the administrative state, could be overturned
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court announced it planned to take up a case challenging a landmark 1984 case affirming vast powers on the part of federal agencies.
As explained by Politico, the high court ruled in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that “courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous provisions in congressional statutes and judges should refrain from crafting their own reading of the laws.” This deference has been called “Chevron deference,” and has been invoked by courts ever since to sidestep serious decisions on challenges to whether agencies are going beyond the scope of the law.
The case the court is now taking up, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, involves a fishing company challenging a National Marine Fisheries Service regulation requiring herring fishing boats to allow a federal monitor to board their boats and track compliance with federal regulations. On top of that, the companies have to pay the salary of the monitor.
But as the plaintiff in this case notes, the federal statute the National Marine Fisheries Service is relying on to justify the requirement that private companies must pay the wages of the monitors, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, makes no mention of compensation.
That’s where the so-called “Chevron deference” comes into play. A federal appeals court last year rejected the challenge by Loper Bright Enterprises on the grounds that the National Marine Fisheries Service’s regulation was a reasonable extrapolation from the underlying law.
“When Congress has not ‘directly spoken to the precise question at issue,’ the agency may fill this gap with a reasonable interpretation of the statutory text,” appeals court Judge Judith Rogers wrote, invoking Chevron deference.
Libertarian groups, including the Cato Institute, have rightly complained that Chevron deference enables the growth of the administrative state at the expense of due process and the ability of courts to weigh in on legitimate challenges to agency authority.
Just last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch lamented in a dissenting opinion, “Rather than say what the law is, we tell those who come before us to go ask a bureaucrat. In the process, we introduce into judicial proceedings a ‘systematic bias toward one of the parties.’”
Now, the court has an opportunity to correct the balance of power and strike Chevron deference. It’s a case worth paying attention to.