I subscribe to American Constitution Society emails to keep myself informed, and they sent out the following email to elucidate on the next legal precedent that the conservative radicals on SCOTUS will destroy. This is yet another thing I predicted would happen upon the death of RBG. Needless to say, this is all part of RepubliKKKlans’ desire — decades-long determination — to destroy the “administrative state,” believing that the American people are being suffocated by the government. And f***tards of America are entirely oblivious to the insidious actions of the uber-conservative, supermajority theocratic wing of SCOTUS. People have no f***ing clue just how important the administrative state is to a well-functioning federal government. Again, as I have said repeatedly, people are going to get a really f***ing rude awakening when they discover that the government has become dysfunctional because RepubliKKKlans have been gunning for the destruction of the bureaucracy. So, good luck with that, f***tards, when the government is no longer capable of protecting your rights, health, food, welfare, you name it! Welcome to stupid America! I live in stupid hell!
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two related cases: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These two cases directly challenge what is known as the Chevron doctrine, which, in short, directs the federal judiciary to respect congressional and federal agency authority and prevents courts from second-guessing agencies’ legitimate policy choices. Should the Supreme Court overrule or erode Chevron, the federal government’s ability to do everything from regulating the economy to responding to national emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic would be at risk. It’s not an overstatement to say that these cases pose a threat to government as we know it.
What You Need to Know
- Context: Our federal government works by having Congress pass and the President sign into law broad legislation, which is then interpreted by federal agencies. Congress does not have the time, expertise, or clairvoyance to legislate on every possible detailed aspect of health policy, workplace safety, social security benefits administration, food and drug safety, land use, environmental policy, etc. Instead, Congress relies on federal agencies to interpret federal statutes and issue more detailed regulations to achieve the objectives it sets out.
- Facts of this Case: Both Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless, Inc. involve challenges to an interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Under the MSA, those engaged in certain fishing activities may be required to carry observers on their vessels, who collect data that is critical to the MSA’s purpose of conserving fishery resources. The two cases before the Court challenge the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) authority to require vessel owners to pay the costs for this monitoring in certain circumstances.
- In both of these cases, the respective district courts and circuit courts applied Chevron and ruled in favor of the NMFS.
- Relevant Precedent: These two cases are direct challenges to Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). In Chevron, the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute that it administers when the statute is ambiguous or silent as to an issue and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. While heavy on the legalese, the Chevron doctrine importantly instructs courts to respect agency authority and enables federal agencies to do their jobs. Chevron has increasingly been villainized by anti-regulatory interests, which have blamed the decision for contributing to the growth of the administrative state.
- Questions Presented to the Court: While both cases challenge an interpretation of the MSA, the Supreme Court did not opt to take up this narrower question. Instead, the Court chose only to consider the broader question of whether it should overrule or narrow Chevron’s holding.
- Potential Impact: These cases are as much about the role of the courts as they are about federal agencies. If the Court were to overrule or substantially narrow Chevron, it could invite a flood of litigation by those opposed to any and all federal regulation and would empower the federal judiciary to micromanage federal agencies. As a result, federal courts could redesign federal governance as we know it, second-guessing agency experts and jeopardizing settled expectations across federally regulated areas, from public health to workplace safety to environmental protection, and more.
- What Happened at the Oral Arguments: Over several hours of oral argument, the justices appeared to break down along ideological lines in terms of their readiness – or even eagerness in some instances – to overrule Chevron. For example, Justice Kagan described Chevron as a “doctrine of humility,” which recognizes there are some places where congressional direction has run out and that Congress would have wanted the agency, rather than the courts, to do something. On the other hand, Justice Gorsuch, a vocal critic of Chevron, noted that “one lesson of humility is admit when you’re wrong.”
