SCOTUS Revisit: Who decides laws, DOJ or other Governmental Agencies? “Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council”

In a highly anticipated decision expected this summer, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will revisit the landmark Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council case, a ruling that established deference to Governmental Agencies in interpreting unclear or undefined statutory matters. This 40-year-old case, decided in 1984, set the precedent for courts to rely on agency interpretations for clarification.

The impending decision has far-reaching implications, with estimates suggesting that anywhere from 40 to over 1,000 Supreme Court and federal cases have deferred to agency interpretations for crucial decisions. If SCOTUS overturns the Chevron decision, numerous rules and regulatory powers vested in these agencies may lose their legal foundation.

The revisitation of the case is prompted by two legal challenges: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Both cases call for the overturning of the Chevron doctrine. The common issue raised in these cases revolves around a longstanding fisheries conservation law, questioning whether the government can mandate that trained observers on regulated fishing vessels be compensated by the vessel owners. The daily rate in question exceeds $700.00.

While the specific matter concerns fisheries conservation, SCOTUS is addressing a broader question: Who should decide when laws lack clarity—courts or agencies? The historical context highlights that agency interpretations often align with political policy agendas. The forthcoming decision is poised to send ripples through the 'administrative state,' potentially either dismantling or empowering it, depending on the outcome. As SCOTUS grapples with this pivotal decision, the implications extend beyond the immediate legal matters, shaping the landscape of administrative governance.