{"id":2151314,"date":"2024-01-17T07:47:02","date_gmt":"2024-01-17T12:47:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-disgruntled-fishermen-could-prompt-scotus-to-capsize-the-administrative-state\/"},"modified":"2024-01-17T07:56:19","modified_gmt":"2024-01-17T12:56:19","slug":"how-disgruntled-fishermen-could-prompt-scotus-to-capsize-the-administrative-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-disgruntled-fishermen-could-prompt-scotus-to-capsize-the-administrative-state\/","title":{"rendered":"Fishermen&#8217;s discontent may lead SCOTUS to overturn the Administrative State"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fhow-disgruntled-fishermen-could-prompt-scotus-to-capsize-the-administrative-state%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2151314&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div class=\"article-content\">\n<blockquote>\n<p>The United \u200bStates\u2062 Supreme Court will \u2062hear oral arguments Wednesday in two companion cases that could \u200dput an end to our totalitarian administrative state: <em>Relentless Inc. v. U.S. \u2063Dept. of Commerce<\/em> and <em>Loper Bright v. Raimondo<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s your lawsplainer to understand the cases, the legal doctrine at issue \u2014 <em>Chevron<\/em> deference \u2014 the oral\u200b argument, the punditry surrounding \u2063the cases, and the significance of what, on its \u2064surface, may appear to be narrow and nerdy issues of administrative law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2>Relentless and Loper Bright: the Facts<\/h2>\n<p>In both <em>Relentless<\/em> and <em>Loper Bright<\/em>, commercial fishing companies \u200bsued the U.S. Department of \u2062Commerce, challenging a federal administrative rule that requires businesses\u200b to pay the cost of \u2063government-mandated monitors who travel aboard their\u2064 vessels during fishing expeditions.<\/p>\n<p>To understand how this administrative rule came about, one must move through\u200b the \u200dbowels\u2062 of the federal bureaucracy, beginning first with Congress\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fisheries.noaa.gov\/topic\/laws-policies\/magnuson-stevens-act\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">enactment<\/a> of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management \u2063Act (MSA).<\/p>\n<p>That\u200c act, first\u200d passed by Congress in\u200d 1976 \u200c\u201cto respond to the\u2063 threat of overfishing and to\u2063 promote conservation\u201d but amended\u200c multiple \u200dtimes since, regulates \u200bmarine\u200b fisheries, which are defined as \u201cone or\u2062 more stocks of fish.\u201d To protect against overfishing, the MSA established eight regional councils \u2062to manage \u200dthe various fisheries. In turn,\u200b those councils establish \u201cfishery management plans,\u201d which specify \u2062conservation measures to prevent overfishing.<\/p>\n<p>The\u200d MSA tasked\u2062 the secretary of commerce \u200bwith reviewing each fishery management \u200bplan and related\u2064 regulations, but the secretary delegated those responsibilities\u200d to the National Marine\u200b Fisheries\u2064 Service (NMFS), a division of \u2064the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The NMFS uses\u200d regional councils to draft the \u200dfishery management plans, which the NMFS must then approve, disapprove, or partially approve. The NMFS and regional councils then issue regulations \u2062to implement \u200dthe approved plans.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(I \u2062did warn that you \u200cwere about to enter the entrails of the alphabet soup of the administrative\u200c state.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2>The Challenged Rule<\/h2>\n<p>This backdrop brings us to the rule being challenged: \u200da 2020 final rule that requires \u201cindustry-funded monitoring for the \u2062herring fishery.\u201d Under this rule, a targeted 50 percent of commercial\u2063 herring fishing trips are to be monitored. And while originally NMFS fully funded the placement of observers on herring\u200b fishery \u200bvessels, in 2018, in \u2064response to growing budgetary\u200c uncertainties, \u2064an amendment to the fishery management plan authorized forcing \u2063the \u2062fishing industry to pay for the monitoring.<\/p>\n<h2>Congress Didn\u2019t Authorize the Final Rule<\/h2>\n<p>The\u200b plaintiffs in <em>Relentless<\/em> and\u200b <em>Loper Bright<\/em> filed \u200dseparate lawsuits against the secretary of commerce, arguing the MSA did not authorize \u2064the \u2064Department of Commerce\u200c to charge the fishing companies for the cost of observers.\u2063 It\u2019s\u200c important to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/21a244_hgci.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">understand<\/a> \u200bthat \u201c[a]dministrative agencies are creatures of statute\u201d and \u201caccordingly possess \u200bonly the \u2062authority that Congress has\u2062 provided.\u201d\u2063 <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/476\/355\/\">Thus<\/a>, \u201can agency literally has no power \u2064to \u200dact \u2026 unless and until Congress confers power upon it.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In passing the MSA, Congress expressly provided that a fishery management plan may \u2063\u201crequire that\u2064 one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United States engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery.\u201d But the MSA was silent on whether the \u2064management plan could mandate commercial fishing companies to pay for \u200cthe cost of the observers. Elsewhere in the MSA, however, Congress expressly authorized the secretary of commerce to collect fees to fund observer programs.<\/p>\n<h2><em>Chevron<\/em> to the Administrative State\u2019s\u2063 Rescue<\/h2>\n<p>The lower courts concluded the MSA was ambiguous concerning whether the Commerce Department could require the fishing companies to pay the cost of the observers. The courts, nonetheless, upheld the final \u200drule by applying the legal doctrine of <em>Chevron<\/em> deference.<\/p>\n<p><em>Chevron<\/em> deference, which was born from the \u2063Supreme Court \u200cdecision in <em>Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council<\/em>, requires courts to defer to an agency\u2019s interpretation of \u2064an ambiguous statute, so long \u200cas the agency\u2019s interpretation\u200c is \u201creasonable.\u201d Courts owe such deference\u2062 to\u2063 the agency\u2019s interpretation even if there is a more reasonable interpretation of the statute, a court \u200bhad previously interpreted the statute in a contrary way, or \u2063the agency \u2064had previously interpreted the statute \u2062differently.<\/p>\n<h2><em>Chevron<\/em> Deference \u2064Is a Big Deal<\/h2>\n<p>The effects of\u2063 <em>Chevron<\/em> deference cannot\u200d be overstated because deference often dictates outcome. \u2064And that outcome is whatever the unelected bureaucrats of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/03\/14\/business\/dealbook\/neil-gorsuch-chevron-deference.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">more<\/a> than 430\u2062 federal agencies and other regulatory agencies say it \u200dis \u2014 so long as they sound\u2063 reasonable.<\/p>\n<p>So while you may not care about fisheries,\u2064 you should care about <em>Relentless<\/em> and <em>Loper \u200cBright<\/em> because the justices granted \u200d <em>certiorari<\/em> \u200b(review) in those cases to \u2062decide whether to overrule or narrow <em>Chevron<\/em> deference.<\/p>\n<p>It\u200d is\u200c difficult to imagine anything that could be \u2062more consequential to the deconstructing of the administrative state than overturning <em>Chevron<\/em>. First, \u200dit would end the practice of agencies making important policy decisions \u2063that Congress failed \u2064to, or refused to, address. Relatedly, it would remove \u2063from the executive branch the power to use \u2062administrative agencies \u2064to \u200dforce through extreme policy\u2062 decisions. Further, reversal of <em>Chevron<\/em> would likely lead to \u2062the\u200c end of the related doctrine of <em>Auer\/Seminole Rock<\/em> deference, which \u2064requires courts to defer to an agency\u2019s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations \u2014\u2062 another legal doctrine girding the administrative state \u2063against legal \u2064challenges.<\/p>\n<p>Should\u200c any doubt remain over the importance\u2063 of reversing <em>Chevron<\/em> deference, one need only watch coverage of Wednesday\u2019s oral argument and hear the screeching from the \u2064left.<\/p>\n<h2>The Main Arguments<\/h2>\n<p>Oral arguments will\u200c likely\u2064 focus on several issues, with the concept of <em>stare decisis<\/em> featuring predominantly. That Latin phrase, translated loosely to stand by\u2062 that which was decided, is\u2062 a prudential principle that \u2063cautions\u200b the\u2063 court\u2063 against overturning precedent\u2063 \u2014 even\u200c when it is wrong. The\u200c court will thus face the question of whether to follow the nearly 40-year-old precedent of <em>Chevron<\/em> or overrule it.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the justices will consider the fishing \u200bbusinesses\u2019 argument that <em>Chevron<\/em> deference violates Article III of \u2064the Constitution, which vests all\u200d judicial power in the courts, including the power \u201cto say\u2064 what\u200c the \u200dlaw is.\u201d The court will likely push the parties to\u2062 explain whether allowing an agency to interpret a statute, \u2062which is\u200d the essence of \u2062 <em>Chevron<\/em> deference, represents an unconstitutional usurpation of the judiciary\u2019s power.<\/p>\n<p>Next, the oral argument will likely consider the petitioners\u2019 due process \u200cargument. Here, the fishing companies argue that <em>Chevron<\/em> deference requires the courts to favor the \u2062government\u2019s \u200dposition, which violates fundamental concepts of fairness.<\/p>\n<p>The major questions doctrine will\u2062 likely also find the floor on Wednesday. That doctrine provides\u2063 that when\u2062 an\u200b administrative \u200bagency \u200cclaims the \u201cpower to make decisions of vast economic and \u200cpolitical significance,\u201d the agency must be able to point to \u201cclear congressional authorization\u201d for the regulation at issue.<\/p>\n<p>While <em>Chevron<\/em> deference is the focus of \u2064 <em>Relentless<\/em> and <em>Loper Bright<\/em>, \u2063in recent years, the\u2064 Supreme \u200cCourt has\u2063 bypassed that\u2062 doctrine and instead struck regulations based on the major questions doctrine. The court\u2019s recent decision in <em>West Virginia v. EPA<\/em> illustrates that approach.<\/p>\n<p>In that case, several states and private parties challenged the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s attempt to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/bidens-epa-vows-to-draft-sweeping-power-plant-rules-despite-scotus-review\/\" title=\"Biden\u2019s EPA Vows to Draft Sweeping Power Plant Rules Despite SCOTUS Review\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-rules-against-bidens-epa-says-agency-does-not-have-authority-to-regulate-carbon-dioxide-emissions\/\" title=\"Supreme Court Rules Against Biden\u2019s EPA, Says Agency Does Not Have Authority To Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions\">regulate carbon dioxide<\/a> emissions<\/a>. The majority held that because the regulation had vast economic and political significance, the EPA was required to cite \u201cclear congressional authority\u201d for its \u200bregulation \u200cof carbon dioxide.\u2062 Because there was no such clear\u200d statutory provision to regulate carbon dioxide, the Supreme Court in <em>West Virginia<\/em> held the EPA lacked the authority to promulgate the challenged regulations.<\/p>\n<p>The majority in <em>West Virginia v. EPA<\/em> addressed the question of\u200b administrative authority through the lens of the major questions doctrine, sidestepping <em>Chevron<\/em> \u200b deference. \u2062Wednesday, however, at least some of the justices are\u200b likely to push the attorneys on how to reconcile those two lines of cases.<\/p>\n<h2>What Will the Court Do?<\/h2>\n<p>While predicting how the high court will rule is\u200d fraught with risk \u2014 especially \u200bbefore oral argument \u2014 \u2063various justices have\u2062 been foreshadowing their predilections \u200dfor some time. Justices\u2063 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/22pdf\/21-972_mkhn.pdf\">Gorsuch<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/579\/15-446\/\">Thomas<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/harvardlawreview.org\/print\/vol-129\/fixing-statutory-interpretation\/\">Kavanaugh<\/a> have all \u200dcriticized <em>Chevron<\/em>, and Justices \u2063Alito, Barrett, and Roberts have all denied agencies deference under the \u200cmajor questions doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>These facts suggest a\u200c majority of the justices may be willing to overturn <em>Chevron<\/em>. And if they do, it will be a mortal blow\u200c to the administrative state.<\/p>\n<p><em>Disclosure: Margot Cleveland is Of \u2063Counsel with the New Civil Liberties \u2062Alliance, which represents Relentless \u200cand which filed an amicus curiae brief\u200d in Loper Bright. The\u2064 views \u200cexpressed \u2062here are her own.<\/em><\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">\n<\/div>\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2> In what \u200dways could a ruling against Chevron \u200bdeference raise constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers<\/h2>\n<p><span>  \u2064 (https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/15pdf\/20-52_2co3.pdf)<\/em> is\u200d a prime example \u2062of\u200c this.<\/p>\n<h2>The Significance of <em>Relentless<\/em> and <em>Loper Bright<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>Although the issues at stake in\u200d <em>Relentless<\/em> and <em>Loper Bright<\/em> may appear narrow and technical, the \u2063outcome of these\u200c cases could have significant implications for the power and reach of the \u2064administrative state.<\/p>\n<p>First and foremost, if the Supreme Court \u2064were\u200d to overturn or narrow <em>Chevron<\/em> deference, it would mark a major shift in the \u2064balance \u2062of power between the executive and legislative branches. The doctrine of <em>Chevron<\/em> deference has allowed administrative agencies to wield significant policy-making authority, \u200boften without clear authorization \u200cfrom Congress. Overturning \u2062 <em>Chevron<\/em> \u2063would\u200d place greater\u200c emphasis on the text \u2064and intent of statutes\u2064 enacted by \u2062Congress\u200c and limit \u2064the ability of agencies to expand their \u2063regulatory authority through interpretive rules.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, a ruling against <em>Chevron<\/em> \u2063deference could also signal \u200cthe end of other related deference doctrines, such as \u200b <em>Auer\/Seminole\u200b Rock<\/em> \u200bdeference, \u2063which require\u200b courts to defer to an agency&#8217;s interpretation of its own regulations. \u2062This \u2062could have a profound \u2062impact on the ability \u200cof \u2063agencies to interpret and enforce their own rules, potentially leading to more\u200b legal challenges\u2064 and\u200c greater uncertainty\u2064 in\u2062 the regulatory landscape.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the cases raise important constitutional questions regarding\u2064 the separation of powers. The fishing companies argue\u2064 that <em>Chevron<\/em> deference \u200cviolates Article III of the Constitution by \u200ballowing an agency to usurp the judicial power of courts. If the Supreme \u2063Court were to agree with \u2062this argument, it\u2064 could have far-reaching \u200bimplications for the relationship\u200b between the judiciary and the executive\u200c branch.<\/p>\n<p>Overall, the outcome of <em>Relentless\u200d Inc. v. U.S. \u2064\u2063Dept.\u2063 of Commerce<\/em> \u200c and\u2064 <em>Loper\u2062 Bright v. Raimondo<\/em> could shape the\u200c future of administrative \u200dlaw and have a\u200b significant impact on the balance of power \u2064between the branches of government. The court&#8217;s decision will be closely watched not only by legal scholars and practitioners but also by\u2063 those concerned about the scope and authority of the administrative state.<\/p>\n<h2>In Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>The oral arguments in <em>Relentless<\/em> and <em>Loper Bright<\/em> present \u200ca unique opportunity for\u2063 the Supreme Court to reconsider \u2064the \u2063scope of <em>Chevron<\/em> \u200cdeference and its\u2064 implications for the administrative state. While the facts \u200dof the cases \u200bmay \u200cseem specific to \u2063the fishing industry, the\u200d broader principles at stake have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power in our democracy. The court&#8217;s decision\u2064 will \u200dnot only \u200cimpact \u2064the relationship\u2064 between the branches of government but also shape the future of \u2064administrative law and its role in our\u200d society.<\/p>\n<p>As we await the \u200ccourt&#8217;s ruling,\u2064 it is important to recognize the \u2064significance of these cases and the \u2063potential\u2063 impact they could have on the way\u200c our government operates. \u2064Whether one agrees or disagrees\u2064 with <em>Chevron<\/em> deference, the outcome\u2062 of <em>Relentless<\/em> \u2062and \u200d <em>Loper \u2063Bright<\/em> has the \u200bpotential to shape the direction of administrative law and the administrative state for years to come.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which could potentially end the totalitarian administrative state. These cases involve the legal doctrine of Chevron deference. Here&#8217;s a lawsplainer to help you grasp the arguments and the punditry surrounding them<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2151315,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2151314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2151314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2151314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2151314\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2151315"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2151314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2151314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2151314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}