Free Press policy counsel Yanni Chen says a Supreme Court decision reversing the bedrock principle of administrative law called the Chevron doctrine is a damaging blow to federal agencies’ processes to protect the public.
Tech Policy Press’ Post
More Relevant Posts
-
“We argue that the Court should take this opportunity to overhaul the Chevron-deference regime because this experiment in rebalancing the relationship between presidential administration and judicial review has failed. It has led to agency overreach, haphazard practical results, and the diminution of Congress. Though intended to empower Congress by limiting the role of courts, Chevron has instead empowered agencies to aggrandize their own powers to the greatest extent plausible under their operative statutes, and often beyond. Congress has proved unequal to the task of responding to this pervasive agency overreach and now has less of a role in policymaking than in the pre-Chevron era. Courts, in turn, have become sloppy and lazy in interpreting statutes. It’s a vicious circle of legislative buck-passing and judicial deference to executive overreach.”
Will the Supreme Court Trim Chevron’s Sails?
city-journal.org
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Chevron Deference Doctrine at risk to be weakened or removed The U.S. Supreme Court this week is set to hear a bid by commercial fishermen to avoid costs associated with a government-run fish conservation program in a dispute that gives its conservative justices another chance to curb the regulatory powers of federal agencies. the companies have asked the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, to rein in or overturn a precedent established in 1984 that calls for judges to defer to federal agency interpretation of U.S. laws, a doctrine called "Chevron deference." The Chevron deference doctrine is an important doctrine in administrative law in the United States. It refers to a legal principle established by the United States Supreme Court in the case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). The doctrine outlines the approach that courts should take when reviewing agency interpretations of statutes that Congress has charged the agency with administering. In brief, the doctrine framework includes two steps: 1. Step One: Courts must first determine whether the statute is clear and unambiguous regarding the specific issue at hand. If the statute is clear, the court must give effect to the plain language of the statute, and no deference is given to the agency's interpretation. 2. Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous or silent on the issue, the court defers to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute, as long as it is a permissible construction of the statute. The court's role is limited to ensuring that the agency's interpretation is reasonable, not to substitute its own interpretation. ussupremecourt#chevrondeferencedoctrine#interpretation#administrative law# https://lnkd.in/gdsT8zE9
US Supreme Court to review federal agency powers in fishing dispute
reuters.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Lots of changes at the Supreme Court level. Many eyes on the Chevron position that has stood for 40 years: The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision (1984), established the Chevron deference framework, which outlines a two-step process for courts to follow when reviewing agency interpretations of statutes: Step One: Courts must determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, then both the court and the agency must follow that intent. Step Two: If the statute is silent or ambiguous on the specific issue, courts must defer to the agency's interpretation as long as it is reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. Now we will see if this ruling stands, given the new justices and their interpretations. During debates, Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that overturning Chevron might not have a significant impact as the Supreme Court hadn't heavily relied on it recently. Martinez argued that although the issue arises often in lower courts, overturning Chevron wouldn't affect prior cases. However, Prelogar disagreed, stating that thousands of rulings could be challenged, with litigants emerging to contest decisions. -- https://lnkd.in/gR_FQ5KN -- VMG Health Brennan Manna Diamond Ronald Chapman II, Esq. LLM Jonathan Levitt Frier Levitt Eric Rubenstein, MSCJ, CFE Sean Weiss
Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron
https://www.scotusblog.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The central issue in the case concerns the National Marine Fisheries Service’s authority to charge the cost of on-board monitors and observers to the owners of the boats whose activities are being monitored. The underlying statute charges NMFS with responsibility for maintaining healthy and sustainable fish populations, and NMFS has determined that the best way to do that is to (1) limit the number and size of fish that can be caught and sold, and (2) place observers on board fishing boats. But who pays for that observer? NMFS said it should be the fishing companies. Historically, the courts have left decisions about such questions to the expertise of agencies, limited by what the courts consider “reasonable” or “arbitrary” based on the evidence before it. History – precedent – is less important than it once was. The Plaintiff in this case, who has stated that he understands and values the agency’s role in fisheries management, was simply concerned about the agency’s decision to require him to pay for that observer. But the interest groups that are funding this litigation have other goals in mind: they’ve asked the Court to issue a decision that would overturn a 40+ year old case, upending the traditional balance of powers and limiting deference to agency expertise. Depending on the language the Court uses in its eventual ruling, the decision could significantly reduce the ability of government protect public health and safety and our shared environment – to do the job Congress told them to do. This is a case worth watching. This article from Vox offers a cogent overview and explanation of the 40+ year history of the precedent the Court is being asked to overturn in this case. https://lnkd.in/eHfNj-XF #administrativelaw #environmentallaw #environmentalprotection
The Supreme Court cases asking the justices to put themselves in charge of everything, explained
vox.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Raise your hand if you have not heard of "Chevron deference". If your hand is up, the article below does a nice job of providing some context as to how this pillar of the administrative law impacts agriculture. It is being closely watched by industry and I think worth familiarizing yourself with the issue. The Supreme Court heard arguments in January and is expected to issue a ruling this spring. If Chevron is overturned, it is expected to significantly impact how lower courts handle challenges to rulemaking by Federal Agencies. As a law blog recently put it: "Whatever happens, it looks like a new era of administrative law is about to dawn."
Government’s Power Over Private Land and Farmers Takes Hit If Chevron Falls
agweb.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The Supreme Court today effectively vanquished the #Chevron doctrine, which has governed the power of federal agencies to interpret federal statutes for the last 40 years. The Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo will have a broad ripple effect through the federal regulatory world, write Larry Saylor, Barry Kaltenbach, Paul Collins, Matthew Greenberg and Benjamin Holwerda. Companies that have relied on a federal agency's interpretation of applicable federal statutes should reassess their reliance, and companies that are constrained by such interpretations may have a new basis to challenge them. Full alert: https://lnkd.in/eD3G3727 #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS #ChevronDoctrine
The End of Chevron: Administrative Power Shifts to the Courts
millercanfield.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Supreme court orders to establish Central empowered committee to address issues regarding forest, environment and wildlife. Click the link to read more: https://lnkd.in/gvdDBuYs Visit us : https://primelegal.in/ LawRato.com PathLegal Vidhikarya Legal Services LLP Prime Legal LegalKart Adv Anik Ayantika Mondal #law #lawfirm #lawyers #legal #legalnews #legalmarketing #SC #HC #attorney #lawstudents #Courts #judgment #advocate #lawinterns
Supereme court orders to establish Central empowered committee to address issues regarding forest, environment and wildlife - Prime Legal
https://primelegal.in
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor spoke to Western States Water Council representatives this morning on a panel that discussed Alaska’s view of cooperative federalism. The Western States Water Council is a government entity with representatives appointed by the governors of 18 western states. Alaska is hosting the Council’s fall meeting this week in Anchorage. “The breakdown in communication with the federal agencies is why we find ourselves in this situation—it’s not talking about it, it’s fighting it out in the courts—and that’s a really unfortunate situation to be in,” said Attorney General Taylor. “Calling the federal agencies’ many decisions to take action without State communication “counterproductive and a waste of resources,” the Attorney General suggested this breakdown is caused in part by “the chief executive issuing broad edicts and mandating these agencies to push these things out without congressional support.” He further explained that “when that kind of thing happens, I think you’re bound to have more of this aggressive stance on the part of the federal agencies, and the states . . . better react because we have to protect the subsistence fishing in rural Alaska, we have to protect our right to develop lands.” Some recent subjects involving lawsuits between Alaska and federal agencies include litigation on Alaska’s right to manage fisheries on the Kuskokwim River, the EPA wood stove regulations, Native lands into trust, and the repeal of the 2020 Roadless Rule in the Tongass. Pictured left to right: Panel moderator and Alaska Assistant Attorney General Julie Pack, Acting Commissioner of DEC Emma Pokon, Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor, Commissioner of ADFG Doug Vincent-Lang, and DNR Deputy Commissioner Brent Goodrum. #WeAreAKLaw
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Law Firm Consultant & Coach | President @ Rainmaking For Lawyers | Succession Planning | M&A | Exit Strategy | Marketing | Increase Fees | Business Development
SCOTUS’ Chevron Doctrine Decision Good for Litigation Firms Today, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Chevron doctrine, which dates back to 1984. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overruled the principle that federal courts should defer to federal administrative agency’s interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes in a 6-3 decision. The decision involves a fisheries statute, but the implications of today’s decision are broad. Moving forward, courts, rather than administrative agencies, will play a bigger role in interpreting ambiguous federal statutes. Agencies’ interpretations will still be relevant, but courts will now have the final say. This is good news for law firms that have the capacity to challenge federal statutes, so we expect a growing number of cases to be filed in federal courts in the months and years ahead.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The DRI Center for Law and Public Policy recently filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court addressing judicial treatment of authority sought to be exercised by federal administrative agencies. The case is Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., No. 22-451. The issue is whether an administrative agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, has the authority under relevant legislation to implement an industry-funded monitoring program applicable to certain fisheries. The Center’s amicus brief was filed in support of the petitioners but takes the position that the agency’s authority should be tested under the “major questions doctrine” rather than the traditional Chevron doctrine. DRI members Melinda Kollross and Don Sampen of Clausen Miller P.C., in Chicago drafted the amicus brief, which was filed on July 13, 2023. Ms. Kollross is a member of The Center’s Amicus Committee. Read more here: https://bit.ly/3OMHnhk. Read the full amicus brief here: https://bit.ly/44gH4RH. #DRICommunity #DRILawyer #DRITheCenter #PublicPolicy #Legislation #Advocacy #Law The Center provides the most effective voice for the defense bar in the discussion of substantive law, judicial process, constitutional issues, and the integrity of the civil justice system at both the national and state levels.
To view or add a comment, sign in
6,244 followers