Dr. Ahmad Torabi’s Post

Raise your hand if you have not heard of "Chevron deference". If your hand is up, the article below does a nice job of providing some context as to how this pillar of the administrative law impacts agriculture. It is being closely watched by industry and I think worth familiarizing yourself with the issue. The Supreme Court heard arguments in January and is expected to issue a ruling this spring. If Chevron is overturned, it is expected to significantly impact how lower courts handle challenges to rulemaking by Federal Agencies. As a law blog recently put it: "Whatever happens, it looks like a new era of administrative law is about to dawn."

Here’s the intro from this blog by Cooley’s Cydney Posner: "On Friday, SCOTUS issued its decision in two very important cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept of Commerce, about whether the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has the authority to require Atlantic herring fishing vessels to pay some of the costs for onboard federal observers who are required to monitor regulatory compliance. To be sure, the transcendent significance of these cases has little to do with fishing and everything to do with the authority of administrative agencies to regulate: the question presented to SCOTUS was whether the Court should continue the decades-long deference of courts, under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, to the reasonable interpretations of statutes by agencies. The doctrine of Chevron deference mandates that, if a statute does not directly address the “precise question at issue” or if there is ambiguity in how to interpret the statute, courts must accept an agency’s “permissible” (think, “reasonable”) interpretation of a law unless it is arbitrary or manifestly contrary to the statute. In a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court rejected the doctrine: the “deference that Chevron requires of courts reviewing agency action cannot be squared with the [Administrative Procedure Act].” In case you scoff at the significance of the decision, consider the seminal nature of the doctrine as described in this 2006 article by Cass Sunstein: Chevron “has become foundational, even a quasi-constitutional text—the undisputed starting point for any assessment of the allocation of authority between federal courts and administrative agencies. Ironically, Justice Stevens, the author of Chevron, had no broad ambitions for the decision; the Court did not mean to do anything dramatic." https://lnkd.in/evPKuk5K

Chevron is overruled. LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 22–451. Argued January 17, 2024—Decided June 28, 2024* The Court granted certiorari in these cases limited to the question whether Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, should be overruled or clarified. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to “permissible” agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently. Id., at 843. In each case below, the reviewing courts applied Chevron’s framework to resolve in favor of the Government challenges by petitioners to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U. S. C. §1801 et seq., which incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §551 et seq. Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. Pp. 7–35 https://lnkd.in/e5mni8st

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.  The central issue in the case concerns the National Marine Fisheries Service’s authority to charge the cost of on-board monitors and observers to the owners of the boats whose activities are being monitored.  The underlying statute charges NMFS with responsibility for maintaining healthy and sustainable fish populations, and NMFS has determined that the best way to do that is to (1) limit the number and size of fish that can be caught and sold, and (2) place observers on board fishing boats.  But who pays for that observer?  NMFS said it should be the fishing companies.  Historically, the courts have left decisions about such questions to the expertise of agencies, limited by what the courts consider “reasonable” or “arbitrary” based on the evidence before it. History – precedent – is less important than it once was.  The Plaintiff in this case, who has stated that he understands and values the agency’s role in fisheries management, was simply concerned about the agency’s decision to require him to pay for that observer.  But the interest groups that are funding this litigation have other goals in mind: they’ve asked the Court to issue a decision that would overturn a 40+ year old case, upending the traditional balance of powers and limiting deference to agency expertise.  Depending on the language the Court uses in its eventual ruling, the decision could significantly reduce the ability of government protect public health and safety and our shared environment – to do the job Congress told them to do.  This is a case worth watching. This article from Vox offers a cogent overview and explanation of the 40+ year history of the precedent the Court is being asked to overturn in this case. https://lnkd.in/eHfNj-XF #administrativelaw #environmentallaw #environmentalprotection

🚨 Breaking News 🚨 The US Supreme Court has overturned a 1984 precedent, curbing federal agency powers. This 6-3 ruling against the National Marine Fisheries Service limits regulatory authority, marking a significant shift in administrative law. Stay informed on this impactful decision! Here's an article: https://lnkd.in/g5fFT9jV #SupremeCourt #RegulatoryReform #LegalUpdate The Supreme Court's decision to curb federal agency powers could have a significant impact on small businesses. By limiting regulatory authority, it may reduce the burden of compliance with complex regulations, potentially lowering operational costs. However, it could also create uncertainty as businesses navigate less clearly defined regulatory landscapes. This ruling emphasizes the need for small businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving legal frameworks. #SmallBusiness #Regulation #SupremeCourt

Follow the link below to read Lisa Yashar’s insights on how a case involving marine fisheries could impact the transfer pricing landscape.

SCOTUS’ Chevron Doctrine Decision Good for Litigation Firms    Today, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Chevron doctrine, which dates back to 1984. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overruled the principle that federal courts should defer to federal administrative agency’s interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes in a 6-3 decision. The decision involves a fisheries statute, but the implications of today’s decision are broad. Moving forward, courts, rather than administrative agencies, will play a bigger role in interpreting ambiguous federal statutes. Agencies’ interpretations will still be relevant, but courts will now have the final say. This is good news for law firms that have the capacity to challenge federal statutes, so we expect a growing number of cases to be filed in federal courts in the months and years ahead. 

Chevron deference allowed federal agencies like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to interpret laws when Congressional language was ambiguous. However, a Supreme Court ruling issued last week has curtailed these regulatory powers, granting courts the authority to overturn agency decisions. This could have significant impact when working on matters that involve federal regulations. Andrew Howayeck discusses the significance of this Supreme Court decision in our latest DE Insight. #Chevron #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS #DEInsights #FederalLaw

Chevron deference had long given federal agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and Environmental Protection Agency the chance to interpret laws when Congressional language was ambiguous. But a Supreme Court ruling issued last week has pared back those regulatory powers, giving courts power to overturn agency decisions. Andrew Howayeck explains the significance of this Supreme Court decision in our latest DE Insight. #chevron #supremecourt #scotus #DEinsights #federallaw

One to watch this session. #SCOTUS