Supreme Court Overturns 40-Year-Old Chevron Precedent in Major Ruling
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old Chevron precedent, giving less power to federal agencies.
On Friday, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision by overturning a 40-year-old precedent known as Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This ruling, which has been a target of the right, is seen as bolstering the power of "deep state" bureaucrats. The decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with the conservative justices in the majority and the liberal justices dissenting.
Chief Justice's Majority Opinion
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, declared, "Chevron is overruled." He emphasized that "courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."
Background of the Chevron Ruling
The Chevron ruling, when it was initially decided in 1984, was seen as a win for the deregulatory efforts of the Reagan administration. It dictated that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute is ambiguous. However, over the years, the ruling has faced growing criticism, particularly from the right, for allegedly granting too much power to agency bureaucrats to interpret the law.
Implications of the Overturned Precedent
The implications of overturning the Chevron precedent are significant, especially in the context of federal agency power. This decision has emerged amidst a series of rulings in which conservative justices have aimed at the power of federal agencies.
Underlying Dispute Before the Justices
The specific case that led to the Supreme Court's decision concerned a federal regulation related to fishing vessel operators. The regulation required these operators to fund the cost of collecting data that would assist with fishery conservation and management, specifically in the herring fishery off the Atlantic coast.
The challenge was brought by operators of fishing vessels, who argued that the National Marine Fisheries Service did not have the authority to issue the regulation under the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. They contended that the rule imposed a burdensome cost, particularly for small owner-operators, as they would have to pay up to $710 a day for independent observers to board their vessels and monitor operations.
Context of Conservative Legal Movement
This case is just one of several in the current court term where the justices are considering attacks on federal agency power, largely led by business interests and the conservative legal movement. The Trump administration had previously embraced the war on "deep state" agency power, which is reflected in the current conservative majority of the Supreme Court.
Share news