SCOTUS Overturns 1984 Precedent, Limiting Federal Agencies' Authority

0:00

/1861

1×

Facts

• The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Friday issued a 6-3 ruling, along ideological lines, to overturn the court's 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which told courts to defer to executive branch agencies regarding the interpretation of federal laws.¹
• The case began in 2020 when fishermen from Rhode Island and New Jersey challenged a law — imposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service — requiring them to pay for data collection and fishing operation monitors that cost up to $700 per day.²
• Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said courts must 'exercise their independent judgment' to determine if an agency has acted 'within its statutory authority.'³
• In dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan accused the conservative majority of making the courts 'the country’s administrative czar' because they're now responsible for weighing the constitutionality of regulations related to 'every conceivable subject.'⁴
• This ruling follows two prior ones related to regulations this term — one where SCOTUS limited the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to impose financial penalties through internal tribunals, and a second where SCOTUS limited the Environmental Protection Agency's power to stop smog pollution from crossing state lines.⁵

Sources: ¹NBC, ²CBS, ³FOX News, ⁴New York Post and ⁵wsj.com.

Narratives

• Left narrative, as provided by Brennan Center for Justice. If SCOTUS was really looking to reflect the founders' understanding of executive authority, it would've relied on the precedent of federal personnel — including customs officers and tax collectors — being given broad discretion in regulating since the country's earliest days. Instead, SCOTUS has put America's environment and health at risk because judges with no expertise on these matters will be determining regulation.
• Right narrative, as provided by Reason.com. SCOTUS has taken an important step in reining in the bureaucratic deep state so that unelected, anonymous bureaucrats won't be able to hide behind their so-called expertise when they shove politically motivated regulations into the lives of citizens and their businesses. But this is just a first step because politically-motivated judges will still be able enforce bureaucratic regulations.

Predictions