[ad_1]
Some conservative Supreme Court justices on Wednesday signaled they were prepared to overturn a doctrine that gives federal agencies greater latitude in interpreting the law, a decision that would require power regulators to intervene in many industries. may be suppressed.
Two cases filed in the high court — Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — challenge a 40-year-old precedent that has become known as “Chevron deference.” I am.
The precedent, which stems from a 1984 case involving an oil company named Chevron, says judges must defer to U.S. government agencies’ “reasonable” interpretations of vaguely written laws. .
The question of whether this precedent remains valid is currently being heard in the High Court. Two commercial fishing companies (Relentless and Roper-Bright) argued that the National Marine Fisheries Service went too far in requiring them to pay for onboard monitors to monitor fishing vessels. Overfishing of herring off the coast of New England.
Eliminating Chevron, a rule created by a 6-0 conservative majority, has become a key issue for conservatives. Chevron’s critics characterize the doctrine as an executive branch power grab that gives unelected officials too much power.
During nearly four hours of arguments Wednesday, some conservative justices also appeared sympathetic to this view. Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the court.
One of them was Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who asked the government’s lawyer, U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger, about Chevron’s tendency to shift power from the judicial branch to both the executive and legislative branches.
Preloger added that under its constitutional authority, Congress can explicitly delegate the authority to interpret statutes to government agencies, and that it “could replace Chevron at any time.”
Roman Martinez, a lawyer for Mr. Relentless and a partner at Latham & Watkins, said Chevron Doctrine was a “fictitious mandate for federal agencies” and should be overturned.
He said the constitution makes it clear that interpretation of the law rests with the judiciary.
Another conservative justice, Neil Gorsuch, also suggested that Chevron was creating legal instability and allowing administrations to change interpretations of ambiguously worded laws.
The court’s liberal justices, on the other hand, argued that overturning the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council would not allow policymakers to act at a time when judges should be limited to deciding legal questions. He expressed concern that he would be forced to do so.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told Mr. Relentless’s lawyer, Mr. Martinez, that he was “concerned that the court would become supermember.”
The liberal justices argued that Chevron’s flexibility, which allows subject matter experts selected by elected officials to understand Congress’s intent, was not one of the problems with the rule; He suggested that this is one of the strengths of the rules.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested that in some cases Congress may intend to introduce ambiguities in legislation that government agencies are intended to resolve later. For example, she said, lawmakers are now tasked with enacting legislation that balances the benefits and risks of using engineering and artificial intelligence technologies.
“Congress knows there will be a gap because Congress can hardly see beyond a week, let alone a year or 10 years, on this issue,” Kagan said. “Our guess is what Congress wants. [agency] People who actually know about AI decide those questions. ”
But one lawyer for the fishing industry argued instead that Chevron had sheltered Congress for too long, allowing lawmakers to avoid the hard work of crafting effective legislation.
He argued that industries ranging from technology to student loans to cryptocurrencies still lack much-needed legislation.
Paul Clement, a former Bush administration lawyer and Roper’s attorney, argued that “these issues are not being raised because Chevron has made it so easy to ignore Congress.”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on these cases by the end of its term in June. The decision could affect dozens of government agencies, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration to the National Labor Relations Board.
“I think it’s clear that Chevron is at risk,” Tina Van Bockern, a partner in the energy business at Holland & Hart, told Yahoo Finance.
Joshua Ditelberg, a Seyfarth Shaw labor attorney who has litigated cases for the NLRB for years, said any changes in how courts evaluate board decisions would be “significant.”
Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter at Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on Twitter @alexiskweed.
Click here for political news related to business and monetary policy that will determine tomorrow’s stock prices.
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
[ad_2]
Source link
