Supreme Court to Hear Case That May Reduce Administrative State’s Power.

Supreme Court to Decide on Fishing Industry’s Challenge to Government Monitoring Program

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could have far-reaching implications for federal agencies’ regulatory power. The case involves a challenge by New Jersey-based fishing companies to a conservation program overseen by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires certain fishermen to carry government contractors aboard their vessels and pay for their at-sea services while they monitor herring catches off New England’s coast.

Background

The program was initiated in 2020 under former President Donald Trump and is being defended by President Joe Biden’s administration. The program aims to monitor 50% of declared herring fishing trips in the regulated area, with program costs split between the federal government and the fishing industry. The monitors assess the amount and type of catch, including species inadvertently caught, amid concerns about overfishing and fishery management.

The cost of paying for the monitoring services was estimated at $710 per day for 19 days a year, which could reduce a vessel’s income by up to 20%, according to government figures. The challengers, including lead plaintiff Loper Bright Enterprises, sued the government in 2020 in federal court, claiming the requirement that they help pay for monitoring exceeded the agency’s authority under existing law.

Supreme Court’s Role

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will decide whether the government can require commercial fishermen to help fund the program. The companies are asking the Supreme Court to overturn its own decades-old precedent calling for judges to defer to federal agency interpretation of U.S. laws, a doctrine called “Chevron deference.”

Attorneys for the commercial fishermen argue that the Chevron deference doctrine “encourages the executive branch’s aggrandizement at the expense of the judiciary, Congress, and the citizenry.” The court’s conservative majority has signaled skepticism toward expansive regulatory power in recent years, including a ruling in 2022 that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to issue sweeping regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court is due to hear the case in its next term, which begins in October. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who participated in oral arguments in the case as a lower court judge, took no part in the consideration of the petition for appeal. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for federal agencies’ regulatory power and the fishing industry’s financial burden.