SUMMARY: The Alphabet Bureaucratic Agencies weld overbearing power, acting as unelected lawmakers, but from the Executive Branch. By-Passing the legislative branch and acting as the Judicial Branch. In 1984, courts decided that Judges should defer judgement to the Federal Gov't Agencies in conflicts, interpretation or dispute. The end result was almost unchallenged power from Federal agencies to dictate regulations. Basically, investigating themselves.
Herring Fisherman have fought their case all the way to the Supreme Court against their regulatory body, NOAA. The verdict from this case may neuter several Federal Gov't Agencies, including the EPA, FDA, OSHA, NOAA, etc...
How Herring Fishermen Are About to Take Down the Chevron Doctrine and Reshape the Regulatory Landscape in the USA.
irrationalfear.substack.com
The case…
Central to the case lies a disputed regulation mandating industry-funded at sea monitoring programs for the Atlantic herring fishery.
NOAA's at sea monitor program has been a source of controversy since its inception in 2013. Initially proposed with government funding, the program took a dramatic turn in 2017 under the Trump administration, placing the financial burden of the monitors on the fishing industry.
This translates to a potential 20% reduction in the fishermen's earnings, with daily monitor fees climbing as high as $700 – a sum that would often crown the monitor the highest-paid individual aboard the vessel. While acknowledging the government's legal right to require on-board observers, the fishermen vehemently contest the authority of
NOAA to shift the financial burden onto their shoulders. Their argument hinges on the contention that Congress, not the executive branch, holds the reins of cost allocation, and that
NOAA's interpretation of the ambiguous statute oversteps its statutory bounds.
Lower courts, however, have invoked the Chevron doctrine to uphold the
NOAA regulation. The Chevron doctrine is a significant principle in American administrative law, originating from the 1984 Supreme Court case,
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine has had profound implications on the relationship between the judiciary and administrative agencies in the United States.
The Chevron doctrine…
The Chevron doctrine instructs courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute if it is deemed "reasonable" and within the confines of the law. It originated from the 1984 Supreme Court case,
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
In a landmark decision led by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court set forth a two-step framework for reviewing administrative agency interpretations of statutes:
- The Court must first determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter.
- If the statute is silent or ambiguous concerning the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.
In the Chevron case, the Court found that the Clean Air Act did not directly address the specific issue of defining a "stationary source" and that the EPA's interpretation was a reasonable policy choice. Therefore, the EPA's interpretation was upheld and the Chevron doctrine was born.
The Chevron doctrine has been a central tenant in several landmark Supreme Court cases, impacting healthcare access, tobacco regulation, administrative rulings, and shaping the very landscape of the government’s approach to ‘solving the climate crisis’.
For example, in
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., where the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of the government’s authority to regulate tobacco as a drug. Applying the Chevron doctrine, the Court upheld the FDA's regulatory power, claiming the agency had expertise in evaluating the health risks of tobacco. This decision had far-reaching consequences for tobacco regulations.
Back to the case…
In their case before the Supreme Court, the fishermen, represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement and lawyers from the Cause of Action Institute, argue that
NOAA has abused its authority and that the Chevron doctrine forecloses an essential judicial check on executive overreach. They assert that Chevron has distorted the operation of the political branches, allowing the executive branch to handle controversial issues without the need for legislative action.
During the oral arguments, it was observed that a majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed dissatisfied with the current state of the law regarding agency deference.
If the Supreme Court dismantles this case law, I couldn't be happier. In recent years, we've all seen Federal Agencies acting like mini-dictators. The prime example was Biden's Vaccine Mandate, in which he tried to use OSHA was the tool to shove that garbage down our throats. Fortunately, it was overturned in the Supreme Court... but that was because lower courts refused to review it and cited Chevron Deference and passed the buck back to OSHA.
I'm sure I'm getting some of the details wrong about the Chevron Deference Defense, but the big picture view is that allows these agencies to run amok with little oversight.
