Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Curtail Agency Power to Regulate Business
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up cases that could make it easier to curtail executive powers.Business.
concisely order, said the court would hear a case seeking to limit or overturn the unanimous 1984 precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. According to the ruling, if the part of the law that Congress gives regulators powers is ambiguous, but the regulator’s interpretation is reasonable, judges should follow suit.
At issue in this case is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a law requiring fishing vessels to pay for lifeguards to ensure compliance with regulations to prevent overfishing. The National Marine Fisheries Service established the rule, but a group of companies disputes whether the agency has the authority to do so.
When the Supreme Court decides on this matter, perhaps in its next term, the outcome could have implications beyond fishing.
If a court overturns or severely limits Chevron’s precedent, it will make it easier for business owners to challenge regulation across the economy. They include regulations aimed at ensuring that the air and water are clean. Food, medicines, automobiles and consumer goods are safe. Also, financial institutions try not to take on too much risk.
In the fishing dispute, the divided three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the ruleCiting Chevron’s precedent, Justice Judith W. Rogers wrote:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the Supreme Court’s ruling because he participated in the debate while in the Court of Appeals.
Libertarian-minded conservatives have long attempted to overturn the Chevron precedent as part of a broader campaign to shrink the executive state. Regulatory bodies have been targeted since the New Deal, in which Congress mandated the creation of a number of specialized regulatory bodies to study complex issues and issue technical rules to address them. .
of opinion In connection with another case in November, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch said the judiciary read too much into Chevron’s submission and waived its responsibility to independently determine the best interpretation of the law.
“Instead of providing individuals with the best understanding of their rights and obligations under the law that a neutral magistrate can convene, we outsource interpretive responsibility,” he wrote. “Rather than telling you what the law is, I tell anyone who comes before us to go ask the bureaucrats.”
Advisors to President Donald J. Trump have prioritized skepticism of the executive state when choosing judges and judges, and the Republican-appointed majority of courts has been in recent years an executive state critic who imposes regulations on business interests. weakening the ability.
and 2020 verdictthe five Republican nominees in the court at the time overruled the provisions of the law Congress enacted to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Two years later, six conservative majority rejected the proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. The ruling reinforced the doctrine that courts should overturn regulations that raise “serious questions” if Congress was not sufficiently clear in approving such actions.
