In a recent session, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated on two cases that could herald the conclusion of a four-decade-long “constitutional revolution,” challenging the way federal agencies interpret congressional laws. The genesis of this transformation can be traced back to the 1984 Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council decision, which permitted agencies to interpret statutory ambiguities based on the incumbent administration’s policy views.
Justice John Paul Stephens’s opinion in the Chevron case marked a departure from the explicit constitutional provision vesting all legislative power in Congress. This heralded the advent of the “Chevron defense,” empowering the Executive Branch to shape specific legislative interpretations, contrary to constitutional principles.
Former U.S. assistant attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, Thomas M. Boyd, suggests that the Supreme Court’s consideration of recent cases, namely Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, may signify the initiation of the end of this constitutional revolution. Both cases involve family-owned fishing companies grappling with the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s regulations governing fishery management in federal waters.
More Read
The National Marine Fisheries Service, acting without explicit statutory authorization, imposed financial burdens on these companies by mandating expenses for federal monitors. Notably, both federal circuit courts sided with the agencies, invoking the Chevron deference and deeming statutory silence as an ambiguity necessitating agency deference.
However, the Supreme Court’s acceptance of certiorari in both cases introduces a pivotal question: should the Court overturn Chevron or, at a minimum, clarify that statutory silence on contentious powers doesn’t warrant agency deference?
Boyd emphasizes that certain Supreme Court justices, particularly constitutional originalists, harbor skepticism about granting federal agencies excessive leeway in interpreting laws. This skepticism emanates from concerns over endowing the Executive Branch with unchecked governance authority.
The ongoing cases, revolving around family-owned fishing enterprises grappling with financial hardships due to agency mandates, could potentially prompt a reevaluation of the Chevron doctrine. The Supreme Court’s intervention might signify a turning point, steering away from the broad powers granted to federal agencies over the past four decades.
The outcome of these cases holds the potential to redefine how federal agencies interpret and execute laws passed by Congress, shaping the landscape of administrative powers for years to come.
