Supreme Court urges Congress to reform | Opinion

This summer, the Supreme Court is poised to overturn a cornerstone of administrative law known as “Chevron deference,” established in a 1984 case. Chevron vs. NRDCThis principle instructs courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law when the underlying law is ambiguous (or absent). ChevronCongress may be forced to become more specific about how it writes laws, delegates authority, and exercises regulatory oversight. If Congress refuses to adapt, government agencies could be crippled and services could be underdelivered.

Ironically, the demolition efforts Chevron Returning responsibility to the legislature may occur within a historically unproductive and divided Congress. Roper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoThe lawsuit challenging the 1984 ruling has raised questions about Congress’s preparedness, and outside the Supreme Court, critics worry that Congress is irreparably dysfunctional.

Those of us who have closely followed Congressional modernization efforts over the past decade do not share that pessimism. But a lot needs to change. Chevron Since the resolution was passed, Congressional dysfunction and decadence have worsened. House committee staffings have been reduced by 41 percent. Key support agencies such as the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office have been scaled back by more than 25 percent. Meanwhile, the complexity of the federal bureaucracy has grown substantially.

meanwhile Chevron It is often said that this ruling weakens Congress’ power, but that is not entirely accurate. Rather than stripping Congress of its power, the ruling created the political conditions for Congress to be deliberately vague and to defer the details of controversial policies to the executive branch. This change has subsequently led to a hollowing out of committee expertise, increased reliance on lobbyists, a centralization of power in the hands of leaders, and increased gridlock. As lawyer Paul Clement put it, Roper Bright vs. Raimondo:

Chevron is a big contributing factor to the gridlock. To give a concrete example: I believe that the 21st century phenomenon of cryptocurrency should have been addressed by Congress, and I think it certainly did after the failure of FTX. But it didn’t happen. Why didn’t it happen? Because we have agency heads who think they already have the authority to deal with this 21st century problem because of some laws that were enacted in the 1930s.

post-Chevron The world could force Congress to build up its internal capacity, invest in expertise, rethink its processes, strengthen oversight of implementation, and become more responsive. Otherwise, depending on the Supreme Court’s decision, things could start to get worse.

Large-scale institutional reforms in Congress are rare and usually come in response to a crisis or scandal, such as the budget changes after the Nixon administration, the lobbying reforms after Jack Abramoff, or the security changes after 9/11 (including the introduction of email after the anthrax attacks).

More recently, continuity upgrades accelerated during the pandemic, and Congress is now moving remarkably quickly to responsibly deploy AI tools. Since 2019, bipartisan modernization efforts in the House have produced and implemented more than 100 reforms, creating a virtuous cycle in which lawmakers, staff, and outside experts work together to improve the agency.

post-ChevronThese efforts need to be significantly scaled up. This will require not just incremental adjustments but comprehensive upgrades of resources, personnel, and operations. A significant increase in the legislative budget is needed, even as the U.S. faces a bleak fiscal outlook. Indeed, Congress, which accounts for just 0.1% of federal spending, has long been a key and politically convenient venue for politicians to make cuts.

One key area Congress needs to improve is regulatory oversight and oversight. AEI scholars Kevin Kosar and Philip Wallach have proposed a new “Congressional Regulatory Office” (CRO) as a vehicle for this change. A CRO would perform important tasks such as conducting cost-benefit analyses of important agency rules, conducting retrospective reviews to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of existing regulations, and identifying overlaps and inconsistencies across the regulatory environment. Another approach would be to build this function within existing agencies such as the Government Accountability Office or the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition to building new regulatory support functions, Congress should strengthen staff capacity and technical resources, with a particular focus on committees and support agencies with significant regulatory powers.

Unfortunately, so far there have been no major hearings or other efforts in Congress to address this issue. Chevron is fast approaching. Regardless of how you interpret this lawsuit, it’s important to be prepared. While most people will be focused on the November election throughout 2024, some of the biggest changes coming to Congress may soon be decided by nine votes.

Marcie Harris is co-founder and executive director of the POPVOX Foundation. Zach Graves is executive director of the Foundation for American Innovation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.