The Constitution of the United States vests all legislative powers in Congress. Yet over the past century we have witnessed a disturbing trend where legislatures are increasingly delegating much of the power to enact the laws that govern the country to the executive branch, which includes unelected officials in administrative agencies . This undermines democratic accountability, contributes to government bloat and abuse of power, and upsets the balance of power so carefully created by the Framers.
Reasserting Congress’ authority is essential to maintaining a balanced government and ensuring that policies reflect the wishes of voters. It is also the best hope for promoting economic freedom and growth. Unfortunately, getting Congress to stop dodging his authority is an uphill battle. After all, we are talking about an institution that is systematically failing to fulfill one of its main tasks by approving legitimate budgets in a timely manner.
Nevertheless, there is some light at the end of the tunnel, as the Supreme Court may soon no longer be so deferential to executive agencies in interpreting the laws enacted by Congress.
As I understand it, “Chevron deference” is a legal doctrine created by the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This ruling forces courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous language in the statutes that the agency is responsible for administering.
In theory, this deference allows agencies to implement complex statutes. In practice, it limits the judiciary’s actual role in holding the other two branches of government accountable for carrying out and adhering to their constitutional duties. One result is that too much discretionary power is exercised by agencies that were intended to enforce rather than create law.
Some plausibly argue that the concentration of power in the executive branch has the effect of Chevron deference leads to excessive, far-reaching regulation by agencies with wide latitude to determine actual policy. Another argument against Chevron is that it encourages Congress not to do its job. Because members of Congress understand that courts will defer to agencies, they can write vaguely worded statutes, knowing that the agencies will fill in the details without much judicial oversight. It may also remove grounds for legal action on behalf of individuals whose lives and freedoms are negatively affected by the efforts of regulators.
This brings us to the case of Runner Bright Enterprises against Raimondo. Loper Bright Enterprises, a family-owned herring fishing company, and other fishing companies have challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). The rule requires these companies to pay federal monitors to collect data aboard their ships to prevent overfishing. The fishermen argued that the MSA did not explicitly authorize NMFS to impose such fees on the fishing industry.
In 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia took advantage of Chevron deference to rule in favor of NMFS, stating that even if the statute was ambiguous, NMFS’s interpretation was reasonable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld and again relied on the lower court’s decision Chevron respect.
This case and a similar case involving Relentless, Inc. involved were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in January. The decision, which will be announced soon, could be crucial.
If Chevron is overturned, it could have significant implications for how courts review and interpret agency regulations. That, in turn, could limit the extent to which agencies can interpret ambiguous statutes without direct approval from Congress.
One hope is that agencies will exercise more discretion in interpreting their own powers and mandates under existing statutes. A second hope is that Congress will respond by crafting the statutes with more care and precision, making it clearer — to agencies and the public — about what it does and does not intend. Finally, there is also the possibility that we could look back at some of the regulatory violations carried out under the veil of the EU Chevron respect and challenge them.
The bottom line is that we may be just one Supreme Court decision away from requiring Congress to write better and more explicit statutes than is usually the case. This obligation does not seem like much. Some scientists believe that the hope for significantly improved legislation after theChevron his wishful thinking. But given Congress’s now routine cowardice in doing its job, I’ll choose even a little hope over despair.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.
The post The Supreme Court May Be on the Brink of Radically Limiting the Power of Bureaucrats appeared first on Reason.com.
