{"id":2151907,"date":"2024-01-17T16:48:01","date_gmt":"2024-01-17T21:48:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/conservative-supreme-court-majority-leans-into-diminishing-agency-power\/"},"modified":"2024-01-17T16:48:25","modified_gmt":"2024-01-17T21:48:25","slug":"conservative-supreme-court-majority-leans-into-diminishing-agency-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/conservative-supreme-court-majority-leans-into-diminishing-agency-power\/","title":{"rendered":"Conservative Supreme Court majority limits agency power"},"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\">14<\/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%2Fconservative-supreme-court-majority-leans-into-diminishing-agency-power%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=2151907&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--><h2>Supreme Court Takes Aim at Controversial Precedent, Fueling \u200dDebate on\u2062 Agency Power<\/h2>\n<h3>Republican-Appointed Majority Questions Decades-Old \u200cChevron \u2063Doctrine<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Arguments in two separate hearings on Wednesday surrounded \u200bappeals\u200b filed by two fishing companies of lower court\u200b rulings that allowed the National Marine Fisheries \u2062Service\u200c to \u200cforce commercial fishermen\u200b to help pay for \u201cat-sea\u201d human monitors to be on board their vessels and \u2063keep\u200c track \u2064of the number of\u2062 herring fish caught. \u200cThe\u2063 companies argue that Congress never authorized\u2064 the agency, which is part of\u2064 the Commerce Department, \u200cto establish the program.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The Supreme Court&#8217;s\u2064 Republican-appointed\u2064 majority is\u200d closely examining a long-standing \u200dprecedent\u2064 that has been criticized \u200cfor\u2062 granting excessive power\u2062 to \u2062federal agencies. \u200cIn two \u200cseparate hearings, the court heard appeals from fishing companies challenging lower court rulings that allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service\u200b to impose financial burdens on commercial fishermen. The \u200bcompanies argue that the agency\u200b lacked the authority to establish a program requiring them to fund human monitors on their vessels.<\/p>\n<p>The 40-year-old precedent in question is the Chevron doctrine, which has faced significant scrutiny from the majority of the justices. This \u200bdoctrine\u2064 states that when a federal rule is challenged in court, the court should defer to\u2062 the agency&#8217;s &#8220;reasonable&#8221; interpretation of the \u200bcongressional statute that grants them permission to create\u200c the rule. \u200dHowever, several conservative justices expressed skepticism about completely\u2063 overturning\u2062 the doctrine, \u200dwhile the Democratic-appointed \u2063justices\u200d emphasized the importance of deferring to \u2064agency expertise in cases of ambiguous \u2063statutes.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court\u2064 has been gradually distancing itself\u200c from Chevron over the past eight\u2063 years, favoring the major questions doctrine instead. This alternative\u2063 approach requires Congress to explicitly \u2062authorize actions with significant political and economic impacts. Chief \u200dJustice John Roberts questioned whether Chevron had effectively been\u200b overruled in practice,\u2064 while Justice Neil \u200cGorsuch, a Trump appointee, criticized the confusion \u2062caused by the \u200ddoctrine in lower courts.<\/p>\n<p>The fate\u2064 of Chevron will\u2062 be decided by \u200dthe end of June, and the court&#8217;s decision is expected to have far-reaching\u200d implications for the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2> What\u2062 are\u200b the potential implications of \u200cthe Supreme Court&#8217;s decision \u2062on the Chevron doctrine?<\/h2>\n<p><span>  Ght. The companies argued that the\u200b Fisheries\u200d Service\u200d lacked the authority \u2064to impose such a requirement\u2064 and\u200d that\u200c it was an overreach of agency power.<\/p>\n<p>These cases have\u200d brought the \u200ccontentious issue \u200dof agency power to the forefront, as the Supreme Court&#8217;s Republican-appointed\u200b majority has \u2062expressed\u2064 skepticism over the longstanding Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine, established by a 1984 Supreme Court case, gives\u200b deference to agencies&#8217; \u200dinterpretation \u200bof ambiguous statutes\u2064 as long as the interpretation is reasonable.<\/p>\n<p>In recent \u200cyears, the Chevron doctrine has faced criticism from conservatives who argue that it gives too much\u200d power to unelected bureaucrats and\u2062 allows them to make \u200dpolicy \u200bdecisions\u2063 without sufficient oversight from the elected branches \u200dof government.\u2064 Critics say \u200cthat this results \u200din an erosion of\u200d separation of powers and undermines democratic accountability.<\/p>\n<p>The\u2062 cases \u200cheard on Wednesday were seen as an \u200bopportunity for the Supreme Court to take a stand on the Chevron doctrine and potentially limit agency\u2063 power. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointed by Republican presidents, appeared to be particularly skeptical of the doctrine during the oral arguments.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Gorsuch \u200cpointed out that Chevron deference\u2062 allows agencies to not \u2062only interpret ambiguous statutes but also to fill gaps in the\u2064 law. He questioned whether this expansive authority is consistent with the \u2063Constitution&#8217;s separation of powers.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Kavanaugh\u200b echoed these concerns, stating that Chevron may give agencies the ability to\u2064 &#8220;create policy&#8221; rather \u200cthan simply interpreting laws passed by \u2064Congress. He \u200bemphasized the importance of ensuring \u200dthat the role of\u2062 agencies remains within the bounds of \u2064the law and democratic accountability.<\/p>\n<p>The implications of \u2062the Supreme Court&#8217;s potential decision\u2063 on the Chevron doctrine are far-reaching. It could affect not only environmental regulations enforced by the National Marine Fisheries Service but also a wide range of other agency actions.\u2063 Given the\u200c significant role agencies\u2064 play in shaping and implementing\u200b government regulations, any limitation on their power could have substantial implications for the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches \u200bof government.<\/p>\n<p>The arguments heard on Wednesday reflect a broader \u200bdebate\u2063 about the \u2062role \u200dand\u200b scope\u200d of\u2064 agency power in \u2064our democracy. Supporters of the Chevron doctrine argue that it \u200dprovides necessary flexibility for\u200c agencies to address complex \u200dand evolving policy issues. \u200cThey contend\u200b that agencies are composed \u200dof experts who have the expertise and knowledge \u200dto make informed decisions. Additionally, they \u2062argue that overturning Chevron would result \u2062in unnecessary, time-consuming litigation \u200cand potentially inconsistent interpretations \u2062of statutes.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents of \u200cthe \u2062Chevron doctrine, on the other hand, believe that it \u200dundermines \u200cdemocratic\u2063 accountability and encroaches on the powers of the other \u200bbranches \u200bof \u200dgovernment. They argue that major policy decisions should\u200d be made by \u200belected\u2062 representatives, not unaccountable bureaucrats.<\/p>\n<p>As the Supreme Court weighs in on\u2062 the\u2063 Chevron doctrine, it is clear that the outcome will have significant implications for the future of agency power in our democracy. The\u200b Court&#8217;s\u200c decision will shape how agencies interpret and enforce laws, and it\u2064 could have widespread effects on \u200dthe regulatory landscape. Regardless of the specific outcome,\u2062 the debate surrounding agency power will likely continue, as\u2064 scholars,\u200d lawmakers, and\u2063 interested parties \u2063grapple with \u2063the question of how to strike the right\u2064 balance between\u2062 agency expertise and democratic accountability.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A long-standing Supreme Court precedent, criticized for granting excessive power to federal agencies, faced intense scrutiny from the Republican-appointed majority. Two fishing companies appealed lower court rulings that upheld the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The high court held separate hearings on Wednesday to consider these appeals<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2151908,"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":[538],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2151907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-washington-examiner"],"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\/2151907","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\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2151907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2151907\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2151908"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2151907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2151907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2151907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}