Michelle Nowlin’s Post

Chevron Deference Doctrine at risk to be weakened or removed The U.S. Supreme Court this week is set to hear a bid by commercial fishermen to avoid costs associated with a government-run fish conservation program in a dispute that gives its conservative justices another chance to curb the regulatory powers of federal agencies. the companies have asked the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, to rein in or overturn a precedent established in 1984 that calls for judges to defer to federal agency interpretation of U.S. laws, a doctrine called "Chevron deference." The Chevron deference doctrine is an important doctrine in administrative law in the United States. It refers to a legal principle established by the United States Supreme Court in the case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). The doctrine outlines the approach that courts should take when reviewing agency interpretations of statutes that Congress has charged the agency with administering. In brief, the doctrine framework includes two steps: 1.     Step One: Courts must first determine whether the statute is clear and unambiguous regarding the specific issue at hand. If the statute is clear, the court must give effect to the plain language of the statute, and no deference is given to the agency's interpretation. 2.     Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous or silent on the issue, the court defers to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute, as long as it is a permissible construction of the statute. The court's role is limited to ensuring that the agency's interpretation is reasonable, not to substitute its own interpretation. ussupremecourt#chevrondeferencedoctrine#interpretation#administrative law# https://lnkd.in/gdsT8zE9

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

The Supreme Court today effectively vanquished the #Chevron doctrine, which has governed the power of federal agencies to interpret federal statutes for the last 40 years. The Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo will have a broad ripple effect through the federal regulatory world, write Larry Saylor, Barry Kaltenbach, Paul Collins, Matthew Greenberg and Benjamin Holwerda. Companies that have relied on a federal agency's interpretation of applicable federal statutes should reassess their reliance, and companies that are constrained by such interpretations may have a new basis to challenge them. Full alert: https://lnkd.in/eD3G3727 #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS #ChevronDoctrine

On Friday, June 28, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-awaited ruling in Loper v. Raimondo, a case challenging the forty-year precedent of Federal agencies interpreting ambiguous statutes. While the case itself was about fisheries self-funding their Federal oversight, the new precedent establishing the Judicial Branch as the proper venue for the interpretation of ambiguous statutes will impact all sectors and industries, including housing. #housing #housingpolicy https://lnkd.in/gJPsJtUK

The recent opinion from the US Supreme Court in Loper v. Raimondo marks a major change in the regulatory rules and administrative process for federal agencies. The decision struck down the Chevron Standard, which previously allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguities in federal statue. Going forward, statutory ambiguities will be ruled upon by the courts. For a heavily regulated industry like housing, this has far-reaching implications. It will likely sharpen the clarity by which Congress directs the agencies to create or amend rules, and it's also likely to impact disputes between stakeholders and agencies on a number of issues, including stormwater rules, lead paint RRP, and OSHA standards. #housing #housingpolicy

From my latest column: "Regulations that punish or penalize citizens are essentially laws passed by the Executive branch. However, under our Constitution, laws are made by Congress. A regulation inconsistent with a law written by Congress or goes beyond what Congress intended is unconstitutional. The liberals and the media misunderstand. The expertise needed to interpret what regulations the law allows is legal, not policy. The laws passed by Congress are paramount to the whims and desires of the Executive branch. The most important takeaway from this ruling is that the Supreme Court is acting to restore the checks and balances that characterize the American system of government. Congress is supposed to pass legislation, and the executive is supposed to enforce that legislation. Sometimes, this will require issuing regulations necessary to carry out those laws. So long as those regulations do not create new rules, they are proper. But when they go beyond what Congress legislated, they violate the Constitution."

🚨 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

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

One to watch this session. #SCOTUS