Since 1984, federal agencies have had the discretion to implement policy mandates ranging from health care to environmental protection in ways that maximize benefits to communities across the United States while maintaining flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. have the right.
This discretion, derived from a legal doctrine known as Chevron deference, appears to be at stake in two cases currently awaiting decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.overturned chevron That would be a mistake.
The lawsuit challenges rules that require commercial fishing companies to pay for government-certified observers to prevent illegal overfishing. Lower courts upheld this regulation with the aid of Chevron. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, a majority of the justices appeared sympathetic to Chevron’s arguments. It allowed federal government overreach and threatened the viability of small, family-owned businesses.
But this decision is not just limited to fishing.Many regulated industries oppose Chevron Compliance is the principle that leaves the legal interpretation of Congressional laws to federal agencies, as long as the interpretation is reasonable. This is because these regulations often hurt profit margins. Despite being framed as a David and Goliath battle of mother and son fishermen against the big bad federal government, this case is backed by very powerful money interests: Fisheries lawyers are He works for the organization he serves, Americans for Prosperity. and gas king Charles Koch.
Repealing Chevron, which has existed as a backbone of administrative law for four decades, would further undermine the ability of federal agencies to rely on scientific expertise to act in ways that promote and protect public health and the environment, while authority will be expanded. Actions that interfere with the important work they do on our behalf, including health, environment, antitrust, and consumer protection.
The stakes are high. Consider the pending case of Garland v. Cargill. The case could lead to the Supreme Court striking down a Trump administration rule that interpreted a federal law banning machine guns to also ban “bump stocks.” A bump stock is a device attached to a rifle that uses kickback to fire additional rounds in quick succession, mimicking the functionality of a machine gun. Bump stocks were used with force during the Las Vegas shooting, which killed 58 people and injured hundreds more. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices bickered over the language of the law rather than following the policy and scientific expertise of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which promulgated the rule.
In another case last term, Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency to “waters of the United States.” EPA used its expertise to define this statutory term, and the Clean Water Act prohibits the dumping of pollutants from point sources into these waters. However, the Supreme Court declined to follow the EPA’s interpretation and instead concluded that private wetlands without a continuous surface connection are not covered by the Clean Water Act. This can increase the discharge of pollutants onto private property and into public waters through underground waterways, threatening drinking water and public waterways alike.
Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has increasingly ignored respect for federal agencies, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA. (2022), which established the modern “major issues doctrine” that requires government agencies to have clear Congressional approval to implement important rules. This principle sets a high bar that many important health and environmental policies cannot survive.
The Supreme Court ruled on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan to regulate power plants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the U.S. government’s SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations for large employers. The principal interrogation doctrine was used to defeat the obligation. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and U.S. Department of Education Student Loan Forgiveness Program.
Because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of which agency decisions are important and whether Congressional approval is sufficiently clear, the key issues doctrine reduces the Supreme Court’s authority at the expense of the agency. expanded.overturned chevron It would further strengthen the Supreme Court’s power, putting federal agencies at the mercy of judges who seek to control drug prices, expand access to contraceptives, and make myriad other decisions.
Chevron’s anticipated fall should renew the debate about the limits of the Supreme Court’s power. Not all of this is controversial. A bipartisan committee of the Supreme Court released a report in 2021 supporting term limits for judges, an idea that has bipartisan support from the public. Because of term limits, judges who unnecessarily endanger public health or the environment cannot sit on the bench indefinitely.
Daniel G. Aaron He is an associate professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney School of Law. Avery E. Emery is in his second year at SJ Quinney College of Law.
