The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the authority of executive agencies, setting aside longstanding legal precedent that required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in executing laws passed by Congress.
The precedent Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council is one of the most cited in American law. There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions that have relied on Chevron, along with 17,000 in lower courts.
The decision threatens regulations in countless areas, including the environment, healthcare and consumer safety.
The vote was 6 to 3, split along ideological lines.
The conservative legal movement and business groups have long opposed the Chevron ruling, partly based on a general hostility to government regulation and partly on a belief, based on the separation of powers, that agencies should only have the power that Congress has explicitly given them.
Supporters of the doctrine say it allows specialized agencies to fill gaps in ambiguous statutes to establish uniform rules in their areas of expertise, a practice they say was contemplated by Congress.
Opponents respond that it is the role of courts, not executive branch officials, to determine the meaning of laws. They also say agencies’ interpretations can change with new administrations and put the thumb on the scale in favor of the government in lawsuits, even when it is a party to the case.
The court decided two nearly identical cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was recused from the first case because she had served on it as a federal appeals court judge.
Both cases involved a 1976 federal law requiring herring vessels to carry federal observers to collect data used to prevent overfishing. Under a 2020 regulation interpreting the law, vessel owners were required not only to transport the observers but also pay $700 a day for their oversight.
Fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose the fee.
The two appeals courts — one in Washington and the other in Boston — ruled that the deference required by the Chevron decision necessitated a ruling in favor of the government. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Washington, ruled that the agency’s interpretation of the 1976 law “to permit industry-funded monitoring was reasonable.” The First Circuit, in Boston, said that “at a minimum” the agency’s interpretation of the 1976 law was “certainly reasonable.”
The fishermen were represented by the Cause of Action Institute, which says its mission is to “limit the power of the administrative state,” and by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which says its goal is “to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the administrative state.” Both groups have financial ties to the network of foundations and advocacy organizations funded by Charles Koch, a billionaire who has long supported conservative and libertarian causes.
Forty years ago, when a six-member Supreme Court, with three justices recused, decided the Chevron case unanimously but with few members, it was widely considered a victory for conservatives. Responding to a challenge from environmental groups, the justices upheld an interpretation of the Reagan-era Clean Air Act that relaxed emissions regulation, and affirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the law was “a reasonable interpretation” that “deserves respect.”
