This case could weaken federal rulemaking

The Supreme Court is debating changing a rule that’s been around for 40 years, which decides how the government regulates everything, from air and water pollution to guns and workplace safety.

The debate centers around the Chevron doctrine that came out of a 1984 case involving energy giant Chevron and the Environmental Protection Agency. It is a legal framework guiding how judges assess federal regulations.

It requires judges to defer to the reasonable interpretation of federal agency officials administering ambiguous federal laws. This means, any federal agency can interpret unclear laws in the way they want, and that is being questioned now.

By whom? Fishermen
Challenges have been brought to court by herring fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island who object to being compelled to pay (~$700/day) for federal inspections of their catch.

The fishermen argue against funding federal observers, claiming that the law doesn’t specify charging the fishing industry for these services.

The SCOTUS has to decide whether it should limit the authority of government experts or prioritize the interests of private entities in legal disputes.

A divided bench
During a three-hour debate on the case, conservative justices expressed skepticism while their liberal counterparts advocated for maintaining the current framework.

Conservatives say the Chevron doctrine gives too much power to the government and not enough to Congress and the judges.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about the surge in litigation in case of a reversal.

Critics, including former Solicitor General Paul Clement, argue that the system allows government agencies too much sway without congressional input.

A SCOTUS decision in the herring case could impact rules and procedures related to land use, stock market regulations and workplace safety, and even evolving technologies like AI and crypto. The decision is anticipated by June.