 |
| Current Supreme Court Justices |
Very recently, on January 16th, 2024, the Supreme Court decided to hear a quiet and unassuming case, Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Gina Raimondo. Lawyers represented fishermen from the northeast, who were unhappy with the government-mandated $700 daily cost of carrying government conservation observers on their ships. However, this case was a cover for conservative lawyers with the interests of corporations and interest groups in mind: the real goal of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was to overturn the landmark 1984 pro-regulation decision in the case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Interestingly, the conservative lawyers are backed by Charles Koch, the very billionaire who played a huge role in the West Virginia vs. EPA case that we saw in the documentary in class, which led to the scrapping of the Clean Power Plan. Thus, it is clear that the goal behind this case is to continue on the path of deregulation.
But what was Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council?
Glad you asked! Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council was a massive step forward in federal regulation, as it established that courts should essentially defer any decisions over ambiguous legislation or statutes to federal agencies. This meant that independent regulatory commissions such as the SEC, EPA, FCC, etc. were given much greater discretion over policy in their areas. Hey, that's what we're learning about in class! While Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council has not yet been officially overturned, many experts seem to agree that it seems extremely likely that the Supreme Court will at least rule to heavily diminish the decision established in the landmark case.
So What?
Put simply, if Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council were to be overturned (or weakened), the balance of power would massively shift in the federal government. The hundreds of federal agencies that currently set rules for all ranges of public policy from healthcare to workplace safety to banking regulation would be heavily impaired in their ability to interpret what Congress means when it writes a law. As we know, this is relevant because Congress tends to intentionally write ambiguous legislature and leave the details up to the bureaucracy for a multitude of reasons that we've covered in class, including but not limited to: it's more efficient, they're more likely to pass, and agencies are simply more specialized and equipped to interpret such legislature.
Additionally, two massive industries emerging - cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence - stunting the power of the bureaucracy to regulate industries that are so inherently volatile and controversial seems to spell trouble for the future of the United States. Judges will have to defer to the out-of-date legislature that is completely unequipped to handle the growing industries.
https://loperbrightcase.com/
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-charles-koch/
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-sitting-supreme-court-justices/story?id=37229761
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
4 comments:
Between this and Roe v Wade, I feel this amplifies how the Supreme Court's rulings are ever-changing, and their interpretations on the Constitution are not set in stone. This can be frustrating for agencies that are set up under one set of rules and must be shut down with a change in the law. In my opinion, that could lead to a major waste in federal resources.
If they decide to overturn Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, there are other ways to restore federal regulation, as we learned in class. The Congress could write more precise legislation, the executive branch could set up more precise procedures, or the government could work to pass an amendment that clearly gives the federal government discretion. However, with such a polarized Congress, it might be difficult to find any consensus to go against the Supreme Court ruling. Furthermore, this would be a victory for conservatives, who seek less federal regulation, so it is unclear that the opposition to this ruling would be enough to enact these measures.
As you said, stunting the federal discretion can have detrimental effects for the power of the federal government to regulate industries, but there are others who would celebrate this change, so the response to this decision will likely be mixed and polarized.
It's sad to see another thinly veiled attempt to reduce regulations for businesses. Fishermen are a much more sympathizable than big businesses, but in the end the regulations were meant to not just prevent accidental or intentional catching of endangered or protected species, but also to ensure that fishermen didn't overfish and deplete stocks to the point that there weren't fish for anyone. I think it's interesting that Charles Koch is backing this case --- would the fall of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council lead to the relaxation of some regulations for his business?
I just read the secondary SCOTUS reading "The Tragedy of John Roberts" and a big takeaway that I believe can be applied here is the 6-3 conservative majority. According to the article, this is the most common voting pattern, and yep you probably guessed it the 6 majority vote was often the "six-justice conservative bloc". Overturning Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council would obviously be a win for conservatives and currently seems to be the likely outcome. I mean, why else would such a seemingly mundane case about fishermen complaining about fines even make the SCOTUS docket? I wonder though if Roberts or any other possible surprise votes might just save Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. If not completely overturned, what possible limitations would there be to appease both federal agencies and fishermen?
Replying to Alex's comment:
Almost assuredly if Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council were to be stripped down, Charles Koch would's business would benefit. Overall, taking away the ability for federal agencies to interpret loosely written legislature immensely benefits the businesses and corporations that are governed by that legislature, as they're more likely to be able to find loop-holes and evade prosecution for shady business practices by claiming that the legislature does not explicitly cover that loop-hole. Now for some plainly horrendous cases, sure perhaps Congress could agree enough to pass some stricter legislation, but as we've learned, it would take quite an event for Congress to come together over partisanship: as well as the fact that Republicans naturally lean towards less regulation, so once this precedent is overturned, it's unlikely that Republican members of the Congress will be jumping to clarify any regulatory laws.
Post a Comment