National News

Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine in Landmark Decision

Published

10 months ago

July 26, 2024

Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine in Landmark Decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case. This decision ends the controversial Chevron doctrine. The case involved was Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Raimondo.

Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine in Landmark Decision

Download the URBT News App from your App store. Apple / Andriod

The Court vacated and remanded the First Circuit’s decision. This decision had upheld a rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), representing the fishing companies, hailed this as a monumental victory. The ruling curtails administrative power abuses.

The Court emphasized the Administrative Procedure Act. Courts must review agency rules de novo. Despite the government’s plea to uphold Chevron, the Court rejected it. Chevron doctrine was deemed unworkable and not deserving of stare decisis. The Court reaffirmed that federal courts must interpret the law.

Chief Justice Roberts remarked, “Chevron was a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.” He stressed the need to abandon Chevron for a principled legal development. This decision prevents federal agencies from wielding undue deference against Americans.

Concurring opinions highlighted constitutional issues with Chevron deference. NCLA founder Philip Hamburger has long emphasized these. Judges abandoning independent judgment and litigants not receiving impartial adjudication violate due process.

Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine in Landmark Decision

The government argued that Chevron supports Congress’s power to delegate policy decisions. However, the Court ruled that statutory ambiguities do not grant agencies authority. Interpreting ambiguities is a legal action for Article III courts. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not mandate fishermen to pay for monitoring in the New England herring fishery. This means the government must bear the cost, as it did for 20 years.

The case returns to a lower court. NCLA and its clients aim to defeat NOAA’s rule and restore the industry’s status quo.

In response to the ruling, NCLA announced the creation of the “Relentless Working Group.” This group will ensure federal agencies adhere to the decision. It will bring together public-interest groups to fight against agency actions that ignore or circumvent the ruling. Congress cannot delegate judicial power to executive agencies.

Statements from NCLA:

“Today is a really special day and the culmination of almost a decade of work to protect the rights of fishermen. We finally saw a return to ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ as inscribed above the Supreme Court entrance. No more will fishermen and other American citizens lose their rights through judicial deference to government agencies. From now on, NOAA and other federal agencies will have to think about the consequences of their actions without the benefit of Chevron. We finally have an even playing field in the courts, and the government will have to pay its own regulators’ salaries without forcing that cost directly on hard-working fishermen. I’m so grateful.” — Meghan Lapp, Fisheries Liaison & General Manager, Seafreeze, Ltd.

“This ruling is long overdue. To allow agencies to pick the pocket of the regulated without congressional authorization is against all the principles of representative government and our constitutional structure.” — John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

NCLA, representing the fishing companies, hailed this as a monumental victory.

“NCLA’s fishermen clients have landed the biggest catch of their lives by persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to take its thumb off the scale when ordinary Americans are contesting unlawful government regulations. When NCLA was founded less than seven years ago, taking down Chevron deference was priority number one, because agencies have used it so often to violate people’s civil liberties. That ability ends today! It is deeply gratifying to have overturned Chevron so quickly. The dismantling of the unlawful Administrative State has officially begun.” — Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA

“Today’s decision vindicates the rule of law. By ending Chevron deference, the Court has taken a major step to shut down unlawful power grabs by federal agencies and to preserve the separation of powers. Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government. This is a win for individual liberty and the Constitution.” — Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins partner who delivered oral argument in the Relentless case.

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in SEC v. Jarkesy: Implications for SEC vs Punch TV Studios – Read more!

Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine in Landmark Decision

Up Next

Creating Content Isn’t A Crime

Don't Miss

ICAN Launches New YouTube Channel to Address SEC Issues

Joseph Collins

Joseph Collins CEO of Urban Television Network Corp.

6 Comments

Alice Martinez

September 4, 2024 at 3:51 pm

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine marks a significant shift in the relationship between federal agencies and the judiciary. By rejecting the framework that allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes, the ruling emphasizes a return to judicial authority and stricter scrutiny of agency actions. This decision could reshape administrative law and governance, fostering greater accountability and clarity in regulatory environments. As the implications of this ruling unfold, it will undoubtedly influence legislative processes and the broader administrative landscape in the years to come.

Reply
Audrey Hughes

September 9, 2024 at 7:56 am

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine marks a pivotal shift in administrative law, fundamentally altering the framework through which courts interpret agency regulations. This landmark ruling may have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary, potentially increasing judicial scrutiny over agency decisions and reducing the deference previously granted to administrative interpretations. Stakeholders across various sectors will need to adapt to this new legal landscape, which could reshape regulatory practices and influence future policy decisions. As the ramifications of this ruling unfold, it will be crucial to monitor its impact on both governance and the broader legal environment.

Reply
Al Jenkins

September 10, 2024 at 11:19 am

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron Doctrine marks a significant shift in the relationship between the judiciary and administrative agencies. This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to limiting the power of federal agencies in interpreting laws, thereby enhancing the role of judicial review in administrative actions. The implications of this decision will reverberate across various sectors, as it may alter how regulations are implemented and challenged in the future. As stakeholders navigate this new legal landscape, the decision serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing dialogue about the balance of power within the federal government.

Reply
Linda Rogers

September 12, 2024 at 3:19 am

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine marks a significant shift in the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. By limiting the deference previously afforded to administrative interpretations of ambiguous statutes, this landmark ruling could lead to increased scrutiny of agency regulations and greater clarity in legal interpretations. As stakeholders across various sectors assess the implications of this decision, it is clear that this pivotal moment will shape the future of regulatory policy and administrative law in profound ways.

Reply
Lori Hughes

September 15, 2024 at 11:02 am

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, signaling a shift in how courts will approach agency interpretations of statutes. This landmark ruling emphasizes the importance of judicial oversight and accountability, potentially reshaping the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. As the implications of this decision unfold, it will be crucial for stakeholders in various sectors to reassess their understanding of regulatory frameworks and the role of federal agencies in interpreting laws. This shift could lead to increased clarity and predictability in regulatory compliance, but also presents challenges as agencies adapt to new standards of judicial scrutiny.

Reply
Craig Richardson

September 16, 2024 at 10:02 am

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron Doctrine marks a significant shift in administrative law, impacting how federal agencies interpret and enforce regulations. This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to limiting agency power and enhancing judicial oversight, potentially reshaping the landscape of regulatory governance. As a result, businesses and individuals may face a more predictable legal environment, while agencies must navigate increased scrutiny in their rule-making processes. The implications of this decision will resonate across various sectors, prompting stakeholders to reassess their strategies and compliance frameworks in light of the new legal standards.

Reply