A new Supreme Court decision in a case involving fishermen has Utah lawmakers excited, and they think it could be significant for the state.
Sen. Mike Lee, Reps. John Curtis, Burgess Owens and Celeste Malloy, Governor Spencer Cox, Utah Assembly Speaker Mike Schultz, Utah Senate President Stuart Adams and Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes all said the decision announced Friday will have a positive impact on Utah.
The case began when New England fishing companies sued for damages from federal oversight. At the heart of the case, which went all the way to the nation’s highest court, was the precedent known as Chevron deference — a legal test that determines when a government agency, rather than the courts, can decide how the law is interpreted.
The Supreme Court has now reversed that principle, meaning that courts have the power to interpret the law when reviewing agency actions. For the past 40 years, agencies have been able to interpret the law if Congress has been vague or silent and the agency has offered a reasonable or acceptable interpretation of the law.
In other words, the power of unelected officials to propose policies would be checked by the courts — a move Utah’s political leaders say is beneficial to the state, given that most of its land is owned by the federal government.
East of the Mississippi River, the federal government owns only about 4 percent of the land, but to the west it owns much more, owning more than two-thirds of the land in Utah alone.
Curtis: Bureaucrats have ignored Congress
“For too long, bureaucrats in Washington have circumvented Congress to write federal laws, which is not what our Founding Fathers intended,” Curtis said in a statement. “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has moved to restore power to the people by strengthening Congress’ authority.”
Curtis said Congress needs to act and called the ruling a “big victory.”
“This is especially significant for Utah, where approximately 70 percent of our land is federally owned, and represents a major victory for us, as we feel that many federal agencies are making rules that go beyond Congress’s intent,” Curtis said.
A few weeks before the decision was announced, Curtis said in a phone interview that agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management have unlimited power to expropriate vast tracts of land, and he expressed frustration with a lack of ability to challenge erroneous decisions.
Curtis said it was a “false assertion” that Chevron would lead to land protection and conservation.
“I’m confident that local people know better than people in Washington how to preserve and protect these for future generations and at the same time make them available for the various uses we want to see in Utah,” he said.
Lee: Chevron’s downfall is the beginning, not the end
Lee shared his thoughts on the decision on social media, saying he believes the powers lawmakers have given bureaucrats are “the most important issue federal officials have to address.”
Lee said that instead of making laws, Congress has given its legislative powers to “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.” “There are a lot of problems with this approach. The Constitution makes Congress the sole law-making body of the federal government.”
Lee said rules and regulations enacted by federal agencies have the same impact as federal law. “In countless situations, failure to comply with rules and regulations can result in heavy fines, business closure and even prison time.”
“Chevron made the jobs of Congress, the courts, and federal agencies easier, and that’s exactly the problem: it made it harder for the public to hold those who make our laws accountable,” Lee wrote. “Chevron’s demise must be the beginning, not the end, of a long-overdue reform process in this area.”
Malloy: Big win if Congress does its job
Malloy said the ruling rebalances the powers laid out in the Constitution and would be a victory for Congress if it acts.
“For too long, Congress has written vague laws that push the details onto government agencies,” Malloy said on social media. “It is Congress’ job to write laws that benefit the American people, not leave it to unelected bureaucrats. I hope this ruling reminds members of Congress of our proper role.”
Allowing reforms is one example of that, Malloy said.
“From the Northern Corridor Road Project in Washington County to the Uinta Basin Railroad, Utah has felt the effects of government agencies delaying or thwarting the wishes of local and state governments,” Malloy said. “More detailed legislation regarding reform permits is an example of what the Court is asking Congress to do in today’s decision.”
Malloy said government regulations are an “invisible tax” on families.
“By overturning the 1984 Chevron decision, the United States Supreme Court denied regulators the power to act like legislatures. That power now returns to the people’s representatives,” Rep. Burgess Owens said in a social media post.
Utah’s leaders on the national stage aren’t the only ones excited about the ruling. Republican House Speaker Schultz, R-Hooper, said in a statement to the Deseret News that Utah is ready to defend its rights after decades of abuse of federal power have devastated the state’s lands, economy and people.
Utah leaders say they’re ready to act
Schultz said the new precedent gives Utah “a powerful tool to challenge and repeal unchecked policies imposed by unelected federal agencies,” adding that the Legislature tasked agencies with finding federal regulations that go beyond Congress’s intent. He said the Utah attorney general filed a lawsuit in response to the findings.
“No other legislature in the nation has fought more vigorously against the expansion of federal power than Utah’s,” Schultz said. “This decision will mark the beginning of an even greater victory in the battle for state sovereignty.”
In a social media post, Cox called the decision “great news” and included a video message he sent to congressional and business leaders in May, in which he said he was frustrated with Chevron’s servitude and thought reversing the decision would be beneficial for the state.
“The principle of deferring to federal agency interpretations of federal law as long as their interpretations are reasonable has empowered federal agencies over the past 40 years to expand their missions and expand their powers, consistently to the detriment of state authority, economic growth, individual liberty and human flourishing,” Cox said.
Senate President Adams (R-Layton) said the ruling properly restored the balance of power and restored democratic representation.
“Federal agencies have repeatedly used their deference to Chevron to ignore the fundamental role of government,” Adams said. “We have seen unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats implement heavy-handed regulations in states, imposing excessive burdens and unrealistic standards without oversight for far too long.”
Adams said he is grateful the Constitution is being upheld.
“Utah, anticipating a favorable ruling, had the foresight to pass legislation authorizing state agencies to identify and report on state government functions that were adversely affected by Chevron’s subjugation to the Attorney General’s office,” Adams said. “This information will be crucial in remedying unconstitutional federal regulations that have caused great harm to our state and its citizens.”
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said he and his team “applaud the Supreme Court for overturning 40 years of error,” and called the Chevron Doctrine “one of the most dangerous threats to the individual liberties of Americans.”
Reyes said that as president of the Republican State Attorneys General Association, he was proud to have advocated as a coalition of states for the need to overturn the Chevron Doctrine.
“This bill gives enormous, and at times seemingly limitless, powers to unelected bureaucrats who are not directly accountable to the people or their representatives in Congress,” Reyes said in a statement.
Reyes said an activist court had used Chevron to “expand big government and advance partisan interests at the expense of individual liberty and state local autonomy.”
“Without recourse to Democrats, federal bureaucrats may use the cover of ambiguity to blatantly ignore Congress’ will and intent, and ignore local and state laws to advance their own political agendas and personal interests,” Reyes said.
