Add to your saved stories.
Liberals want the Supreme Court to defer to the judgment of government experts, and conservatives want judges to not favor government regulators over private companies, industry or individuals in litigation. Arrow Right After more than three hours of argument, it was unclear whether the court's conservative majority would overturn or scale back the 40-year-old precedent that is under review in a pair of cases brought by herring fishermen. Federal rules requiring commercial fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors were being considered by the high court. The court's decision has the potential to limit the flexibility of federal agencies to regulate vast swaths of American life, including the environment, financial markets, public health and the workplace The Natural Resources Defense Council requires judges to defer to the reasonable interpretation of federal laws. The Biden administration was put on the defensive by the Justices on Wednesday as they grilled them on the Trump administration initiative. The judges have little choice but to defer to the changing interpretations of agency officials because of the way Chevron allows federal agencies to flip-flops and impose different rules. You say don't overrule Chevron because it would be a shock to the system, but the reality is that when a new administration comes in, it puts Chevron in charge of the system every four or eight years. Jackson is worried about courts becoming morelegislators.
If we take away something like Chevron, the court will become a policymaker by majority rule or not, she said. The court may decide to toss one of the most-cited legal precedents if Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy ConeyBarrett are to be believed. Roberts mentioned on Wednesday that the court had already overruled Chevron in practice. One of the lawyers for the fishermen asked if it would be a good idea to overturn a key decision such as Chevron. The cases brought by Atlantic herring fishermen are supported by two conservative legal organizations that have received millions of dollars from the Koch network. They say it is unconstitutional for judges to defer to the government agencies.
The attorney for the Rhode Island fishermen said that courts should not be forced to adoptinferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons. Environmental groups, labor and civil rights organizations, and supporters of Chevron say Congress often writes broad statutes to give government experts latitude to address emerging complex problems. They say that if one of the nation's most cited legal precedents is overturned or scaled back, it will shift power to the courts and Congress. Prelogar urged the justices to clarify the limits of the decision rather than overturn it. She said that the regulations upheld by Chevron have been used by Congress, agencies, states, regulated parties and the American public to make important decisions. In a series of questions, she asked if courts or agency officials with experience and expertise should determine if a new product promoting healthy cholesterol is a diet pill or a drug. We don't know what the questions are about, let alone the answers to them
Congress can give some policymaking discretion to agencies, but once the law is written and the interpretive function has begun, that job is for the courts.
The herring fishermen watched from the back of the courtroom as he asked if Congress really thought that the agency would get to decide who pays for the monitors. The fishermen are challenging a program that requires them to pay for monitors on their vessels. The fishermen appealed to the Supreme Court, but the program ended because there wasn't enough money. The fishermen were reimbursed for all their expenses. Clement said that when a statute is ambiguous, Congress doesn't want agencies to fill in the gaps, so he will leave it ambiguous. If the court overturns precedent, as it has in the past, she warned wednesday about the implications for the legitimacy of the court. The courts are acting like courts if you blow up one doctrine of humility, and then expect anyone to think that the courts are acting like courts. "One lesson of humility is to admit when you're wrong," he said a few moments later.
The cases are related to the Department of Commerce.