The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases that involve the legal doctrine purportedly responsible for increasing the power of government agencies and regulators in shaping and interpreting laws passed by Congress.
Litigants in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo are seeking to end what is widely referred to as the Chevron deference doctrine that stemmed from a 1984 decision by the high court. The doctrine established the administrative law principle whereby courts defer to the reasonable statutory interpretations of administrative bodies when challenged unless Congress has expressly spoken to the issue in question.
Proponents of the doctrine claim it enables federal agencies to utilize the knowledge and advice of experts in their service that the courts otherwise do not have.
That argument was made by some of the high court’s justices, including Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor challenged the lawyer of the petitioners seeking to overturn the doctrine in Relentless. Referring to difficult or close interpretations of law, Sotomayor asked, “Why shouldn’t the person with all of the qualities you spoke about, the entity with all of the qualities, expertise, experience, on-the-ground execution, knowledge of consequences, why shouldn’t deference be given to that entity?”
Making the case for limiting the power of federal agencies, Relentless Inc. attorney Roman Martinez told the justices that the Chevron doctrine has “distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation.” Martinez noted that lower courts have continually defaulted to the Chevron doctrine when such cases arise.
He then laid out three reasons in support of overturning the doctrine:
“First, Chevron violates the Constitution. Article III empowers judges to say what the law is. It requires them to interpret federal statutes using their best and independent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reallocates interpretive authority from courts to agencies, and it forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons.”
He also argued that the Chevron doctrine violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires a de novo- or no deference-based standard of review when an administrative decision is challenged. Martinez’s third basis for overturning Chevron is that it is partly justified by an implied delegation theory that Congress intended to give deference to agencies in interpreting statutes.
The Dallas Express spoke with Chance Weldon, director of litigation at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), about the challenge to the long-standing doctrine. TPPF had filed an amicus brief on the issue, lending their support to the side challenging administrative power.
Weldon noted that though the APA, which dates back to the 1940s, would have applied a de novo standard of review, “the Chevron case did not discuss the text of 706,” which lays out the scope of review under the APA.
“The problem with Chevron isn’t just that it asks judges to abdicate their responsibility to interpret the law, but it also creates significant due process concerns for ordinary people who have to go to court against administrative agencies,” Weldon explained. “The whole reason we have courts is to have a neutral arbiter.”
“In the case of federal regulations, the consequence to ordinary people could be their entire livelihood. It is fundamentally unfair for the court to come with a giant thumb on the scale for one party in the case. That’s exactly what Chevron requires,” added Weldon.
Weldon also addressed the concern expressed by some of the justices that courts may not be well equipped to vet some laws properly, and therefore, the Chevron doctrine is needed.
“If you apply all the cannons of construction, and you still don’t know what the statute means, that is an unconstitutionally vague statute,” Weldon submitted.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case this summer.
