Supreme Court curbs power of federal regulators, overturning 40-year precedent

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a 40-year-old precedent that has guided how federal agencies protect the environment, workers, consumers and more, making it easier for regulations to be challenged in court.

In one of its biggest decisions of the term, a conservative court that’s been increasingly skeptical of federal power rejected the deference courts have given federal agencies in cases where the law is unclear.

While the pair of cases decided Friday were brought by herring fishermen who objected to being forced to pay for federal inspections of their catch, the decision strikes at decades of rules for a wide range of regulations.

Those procedures were set by a landmark 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which is one of the most frequently cited Supreme Court decisions.

That ruling said courts should side with a federal agency’s interpretation of a law as long as it’s a reasonable interpretation of what Congress intended.

More: A group of herring fishermen may put a hook in the Biden administration's power

Ironically, the 1984 decision stemmed from a case that cut back on environmental regulations – and it was applauded by conservatives at the time.

More recently, conservatives have argued the decision gave too much leeway to agencies and not enough to the courts, which are charged under the Constitution with interpreting laws.

The 6-3 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts found that the longstanding precedent in Chevron defied the Administrative Procedures Act by giving agencies priority in interpreting laws − rather than the courts.

Agencies, Roberts wrote, “have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities.”

“Courts do,” he said.

“The very point of the traditional tools of statutory construction−the tools courts use every day − is to resolve statutory ambiguities,” Roberts wrote. “That is no less true when the ambiguity is about the scope of an agency’s own power − perhaps the occasion on which abdication in favor of the agency is least appropriate.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined his opinion.

'Administrative czar'? Justice Kagan's dissent

In a strongly-worded dissent, Justice Elena Kagan accused her colleagues in the majority of turning themselves "into the country’s administrative czar."

"In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue – no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden – involving the meaning of regulatory law," Kagan wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds – to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest,” Kagan wrote. “Congress knows that it does not – in fact cannot – write perfectly complete regulatory statutes.”

More: 'How do we know where the line is?' Supreme Court considers 'Chevron' doctrine in major case

The Biden administration’s lawyers had warned that throwing out the 1984 standard would displace thousands of past decisions and “create chaos.”

But Roberts said previous agency decisions governing regulations, including the Clean Air Act, should stand despite Friday's bombshell ruling.

“The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful – including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself – are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology,” Roberts wrote, meaning those older decisions would follow precedent.

`Biggest catch of their lives'

Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented the challengers, said the herring fishermen “have landed the biggest catch of their lives.”

When the group was founded in 2017, taking down the Chevron precedent was its top priority.

“The dismantling of the unlawful Administrative State has officially begun,” Chenoweth said in a statement.

Leaders of an alliance of consumer, labor, environmental and other groups said the decision is a gift to corporations and will significantly undermine government experts.

“The public expects our government to protect us from dangerous products, polluted air and water, unsafe workplaces, and fraudulent markets,” said Rachel Weintraub, executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. “This decision will harm all of us for as long as it stands.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the decision “made clear that we are a nation government by the rule of law, not bureaucratic regulators.”

But, Grassley, added, Congress is now under extreme pressure to be more specific when writing legislation so it can be clearly interpreted by the courts and federal agencies.

Varu Chilakamarri, a former Justice Department official now at K&L Gates, predicted it will be a while to see the effects of the decision on the lawmaking process.

“But going forward, agency action will be under even greater scrutiny and there will likely be more opportunities for the regulated community to challenge agency rules and adjudications,” she said. “The decision could be viewed as putting regulated communities on a more equal-footing with the agencies

Lower courts had sided with the government

Both the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Boston-based 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had sided with the federal government, affirming lower court decisions.

The fishing companies that appealed to the Supreme Court objected to having to pay for federal observers required on some boats to prevent overfishing.

The government has stopped that program and refunded the money. But the companies argued the law that allows the National Marine Fisheries Service to require commercial fishing boats to let federal agents collect data about the catch and ensure rules are followed didn’t say anything specifically about charging the fishing industry for the observers.

Business groups, conservative think tanks, Republican members of Congress and the attorneys general from 27 states sided with the challengers.

Those backing the federal government included environmental groups, Democratic members of Congress, Democratic attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia, and organizations advocating for public health, consumers and civil rights.

The combined cases are Loper Bright Enterprises Inc. v. Gina Raimondo and Relentless Inc., v. Department of Commerce.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court curbs power of federal regulators, overturning 40-year precedent