In the ongoing battle over regulatory power in the United States, two Supreme Court cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce—are poised to make significant waves. Both cases challenge the scope of regulatory authority under the Chevron deference doctrine, potentially reshaping the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary.
The Chevron deference, stemming from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., has long been a cornerstone of administrative law. It mandates that courts defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers, provided the interpretation is reasonable. This doctrine has allowed agencies considerable leeway in interpreting laws and enacting regulations.
Loper Bright Enterprises, a New Jersey-based family-owned fishing company, challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rule that required the fishing industry to fund at-sea monitors. The rule, based on an amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), imposes significant costs on fishermen, estimated at $700 per day. Loper Bright argued that the MSA does not authorize the NMFS to require industry-funded monitoring and that such an interpretation is an overreach of Chevron deference.
The District Court ruled in favor of the NMFS, applying Chevron deference. However, the case was appealed, and the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the ruling, finding that even if the statute were ambiguous, the NMFS’s interpretation was reasonable. Loper Bright then petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the application of Chevron, questioning whether it should be overruled or at least limited (SCOTUSblog) (LII / Legal Information Institute).
Relentless Inc., another commercial fishing entity, brought a similar challenge against the Department of Commerce, questioning the same NMFS rule. This case, originating from the First Circuit, echoes the concerns raised by Loper Bright regarding the scope and application of Chevron deference. Relentless Inc. also petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on whether statutory silence implies agency authority and whether Chevron should continue to be applied in such cases (Wikipedia) (FedSoc).
Both cases underscore the critical issue of whether federal agencies should have broad interpretative authority under Chevron, particularly when statutes are silent or ambiguous on specific issues. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these cases together highlights their shared legal questions and potential to redefine regulatory power.
A Supreme Court decision to limit or overrule Chevron could dramatically alter the landscape of administrative law. It could reduce the power of federal agencies to interpret statutes, shifting more authority to the judiciary to determine the clarity and intent of congressional legislation. This change could lead to increased legal challenges against regulatory actions and a more constrained regulatory environment.
As the Supreme Court prepares to release its opinion in these pivotal cases, the potential for a major shift in regulatory power looms large. The outcomes could either reaffirm the status quo, granting continued deference to agency expertise, or usher in a new era of judicial authority over federal regulations.
These cases not only reflect the ongoing tension between regulatory agencies and the industries they oversee but also have the potential to redefine the boundaries of regulatory power in the United States.
