Link to tweet

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers.[1] The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference".[2] The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction [emphasis added] of the statute", so long as Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question. . .

Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), United States federal courts have the authority to judicially review the statutes enacted by Congress, and declare a statute invalid if it violates the Constitution. But the Constitution sets no express limits on how much federal authority can be delegated to a government agency. Rather, limits on the authority granted to a federal agency occur within the statutes enacted by Congress. It is also worth noting that federal courts are constitutionally of "limited jurisdiction". Congress bestowed on them the authority to adjudicate administrative matters in 1948. [28 USC sec. 1331 (1948)]

In 1974 the Supreme Court stated that deference depends on an administrative interpretation being consistent with the agency's other statements and being consistent with the congressional purpose:

We have recognized previously that the weight of an administrative interpretation will depend, among other things, upon "its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements" of an agency. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944). See generally 1 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 5.03-5.06 (1958 ed. and Supp. 1970). . . . In order for an agency interpretation to be granted deference, it must be consistent with the congressional purpose. Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U. S. 86 (1973); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 381 (1969).[5] . .

The issue facing the Court was what standard of review should be applied by a court to a government agency's own reading of a statute that it is charged with administering.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld the EPA's interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the "Chevron two-step test&quot , where a reviewing court determines:

First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

— Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).

Chevron is probably the most frequently cited case in American administrative law,[8] but some scholars suggest that the decision has had little impact on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence and merely clarified the Court's existing approach.[9] The ruling that the judiciary should defer to a federal agency's interpretation of ambiguous language from Congressional legislation relevant to the agency is often referred to as the Chevron deference. Several of the EPA's rulings for emissions regulations, as well as the Federal Communications Commission's stance on net neutrality have been based on cases decided on the Chevron deference.[10]

OPPOSITION:

The United States House of Representatives in the 115th Congress passed a bill on January 11, 2017, called the "Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017", which, if made into law, would change the doctrine of Chevron deference.[17][18][19] According to Charles Murray in By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission,

Chevron deference augments that characteristic of prerogative power by giving regulatory bureaucrats a pass available to no private citizen and to no other government officials — including the president and cabinet officers — who function outside the regulatory state. For everyone except officials of the regulatory state, judges do not defer to anything except the text of the law in question and the body of case law accompanying it.[20]

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch (son of Anne Gorsuch, who was head of EPA at the time of the events which led to the Chevron decision) has also written opinions against Chevron deference,[21] with news commentators believing that Gorsuch may rule against Chevron deference on the Supreme Court.[22]

In the U.S. Supreme Court case City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC,[23] the dissent by Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito objected to excessive Chevron deference to agencies:

My disagreement with the Court is fundamental. It is also easily expressed: A court should not defer to an agency until the court decides, on its own, that the agency is entitled to deference.[23]: 1877 

In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., we established a test for reviewing "an agency's construction of the statute which it administers." 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). If Congress has "directly spoken to the precise question at issue," we said, "that is the end of the matter." Ibid. A contrary agency interpretation must give way.[23]: 1878 

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). The rise of the modern administrative state has not changed that duty. Indeed, the Administrative Procedure Act, governing judicial review of most agency action, instructs reviewing courts to decide "all relevant questions of law." 5 U.S.C. § 706.[23]: 1880 

Likewise before joining the U.S. Supreme Court, 10th Circuit Judge Gorsuch in his concurrence in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch[24] also objected to excessive Chevron deference to agencies: . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

a bathtub? My mind's drawing a blank right now.

Grover Norquist, that's the one, right?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

The Fifth Circuit court dealt a major blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to enforce securities law and seek penalties for violations. In its 2-1 ruling, the court said that using SEC judges, also known as administrative law judges, is unconstitutional because it denies fraud defendants their right to a jury trial. The court also said that SEC judges have no authority under the Constitution because Congress did not provide guidance on when the SEC should bring cases in-house instead of a court.
Here’s what this decision means: the Fifth Circuit gutted the ability of a regulatory agency to enforce federal law. Congress has the power to give federal agencies the authority to enact regulations that protect us in our daily lives. Congress defines each agency’s goals, but leaves it up to the health and safety experts in those agencies to craft and enforce regulations. For instance, the FDA didn’t need congressional approval to recall the defective baby formula that was making babies sick. The SEC doesn’t need congressional approval to charge hedge fund managers with securities fraud.
But this ruling says that the SEC actually doesn’t have the power to enforce securities law, meaning all other agencies’ enforcement power could be at risk. That means the federal government has essentially lost the ability to enforce regulations. This decision won’t just apply to the SEC: gutting regulations has been a key part of the Republican agenda for decades. I know regulations don’t sound very exciting, but it’s how the government keeps us safe: OSHA protects us in our workplaces, the EPA keeps our air fresh and our water clean, the FDA makes sure we don’t get sick from eating certain foods, et cetera.
Make no mistake: deregulation is anti-worker, anti-consumer, and anti-environment. If this agenda succeeds, we all lose.

(FB)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet