Op-ed: SCOTUS strikes definitive blow against overgrown administrative state by upending Chevron doctrine
In a landmark decision issued at the end of its term, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a longstanding legal doctrine many believe led to the exponential growth of an unaccountable administrative state.
By overturning what was commonly known as Chevron deference, the justices removed the inordinate power that was for decades wielded by executive branch agencies, forcing the president and Congress to collaborate more closely in order to articulate the desired purpose and appropriate means through which legislation is implemented, as Thomas Vartanian writes in an op-ed for The Hill.
David Trumps Goliath
As Fox News reported, the controversy that resulted in the end of Chevron involved a group of fishermen who filed suit against a federal agency that required them to pay for “at sea” monitoring.
The plaintiffs contended that the rule itself went beyond the authority given to the agency by Congress.
Once the case made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court, it became clear that the precedent of administrative agency deference derived from the 1980s case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council -- long derided by conservatives concerned about an ever-expanding unelected bureaucracy -- could well fall.
Indeed, in a 6-3 decision issued in June, the high court overturned the notion that anytime a federal regulation is subjected to a challenge, courts are required to defer to the agency's own position on whether Congress granted it sufficient authority to promulgate it, provided such interpretation was reasonable and the legislature had remained silent on the question at hand.
While liberal justices including Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voiced their dissent with the outcome, however, suggesting that the ruling could turn critical regulatory issues such as those involving medicine, food safety, and environmental concerns over to judges lacking in expertise on such matters.
An concept gone too far
As Vartanian writes, there are roughly 250 federal agencies currently inexistence, employing experts in the regulation of all sorts of issues and topic areas that touch the lives of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and given that judges are, by and large, unable to stay abreast of all such subjects, the Chevron doctrine may have made sense when it first came on the scene.
However, he added, “the Chevron doctrine was never meant to become, as it sometimes has over time, an invitation for agencies to implement an agenda extending beyond the law.”
“I am confident that the country will not devolve into chaos because unelected regulators can no longer color outside the lines of ambiguous statutes and expect judges to agree,” he added.
As a result of the recent decision, Vartanian asserts, administrative law has returned “to its pre-1984 condition where, for better or worse, judges – not regulators – are the final interpreters of laws enacted by Congress. Agencies won't be able to use the 'it's true because I said it' defense anymore.”
“They will have to present a compelling record to the court to support their actions. And that record will have to correlate directly to the authority Congress gave them,” he went on. “That doesn't sound bad or unfair.”
Congressional duty highlighted
The overall implication of the end of Chevron is, according to Casey Mattox, vice president of legal strategy at Stand Together, is “that our elected leaders in Congress should be the ones who are making the laws that impact Americans' everyday lives, and not unelected bureaucrats in cubicles in Washington, D.C.”
He added, “I think what the decision to overturn Chevron means is that when Congress is passing laws, it needs to actually get the expertise it needs and then be politically accountable for the decision it's making,” and that is a sentiment with which millions of Americans who are fed up with the ever-expanding nature of what Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) dubbed the “faceless leviathan” of government agencies can surely agree.