The Supreme Court's six conservative justices overturned the 1984 decision known as Chevron, which conservatives have long wanted to get rid of to weaken government regulations. The liberal justices disagreed with this decision.
This case was the strongest and clearest rejection by the conservative-led Supreme Court of what critics of regulations call the "administrative state."
Billions of dollars could be affected by challenges that may arise from the Supreme Court's decision. The Biden administration's top lawyer for the Supreme Court had warned that this change would be an unnecessary shock to the legal system.
The Chevron decision states that federal agencies can clarify details when laws are not clear. Opponents argued that this gave power to government experts instead of judges.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that courts must use their own judgment to decide if an agency is acting within its legal authority.
Roberts wrote that this decision does not affect previous cases that were based on the Chevron decision.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that this assurance is unconvincing. She wrote, "The majority is optimistic; I am not."
Kagan said this decision is another example of the Court's effort to reduce agency power, even though Congress intended otherwise. She noted that just a day before, the same justices took away a key tool from the Securities and Exchange Commission for fighting fraud.
The Supreme Court decided cases involving Atlantic herring fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island who objected to a fee they had to pay. Lower courts had used the Chevron decision to support a rule from 2020 by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This rule required herring fishermen to cover the costs of government-mandated observers who monitor how much fish they catch.
Conservative and business groups strongly supported the fishermen's appeals, believing that a court reshaped during Republican Donald Trump's presidency would further weaken government regulations.
The conservative majority on the court has previously restricted environmental regulations and blocked efforts by the Democratic Biden administration related to COVID-19 vaccines and student loan forgiveness.
Since 2016, the justices had not referred to Chevron in their decisions, but lower courts had still been applying it.
Forty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled 6-0, with three justices not participating, that judges should take a limited, respectful approach when reviewing decisions made by agency experts. This decision came in a case brought by environmental groups contesting the Reagan administration's attempt to relax regulations on power plants and factories.
In 1984, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that judges are not specialists in specific fields and do not belong to either of the two main branches of government, which is why they should have a restricted role.
However, the current Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has become more doubtful about the authority of federal agencies. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas have all expressed concerns about the Chevron decision.
They were part of the majority decision on Friday, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Roberts directly countered Stevens' view from 40 years ago, stating that legal interpretation has always been the responsibility of the judicial branch, quoting the Marbury v. Madison decision that affirmed the Supreme Court's role in interpreting laws and the Constitution for over two centuries.
Kagan argued that eliminating Chevron gives courts authority over issues they are not familiar with. She read a summary of her dissent aloud in the courtroom to underscore her opposition to the majority's decision.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor also disagreed with Kagan's dissent.
Critics of the Chevron doctrine argue that judges used it too frequently to automatically approve decisions made by government officials. The court emphasized on Friday that judges must use their own authority and judgment to interpret the law, echoing the arguments of these critics.
Bill Bright, a fisherman from Cape May, New Jersey, involved in the lawsuit, stated that overturning Chevron would assist fishing businesses in supporting their families and crews, emphasizing the importance of protecting their livelihoods.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre criticized the ruling, calling it another concerning decision that she believes sets the country back. She argued that Republican-supported special interests have frequently used the Supreme Court to prevent sensible regulations aimed at ensuring safety, protecting health and the environment, securing the financial system, and supporting American consumers and workers.
Federal agencies and the Justice Department had already started to use the Chevron decision less often when creating and defending new regulations.
Environmental and health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, organized labor, and Democrats at both national and state levels had requested the court to maintain the Chevron decision.
Sambhav Sankar, a lawyer from the environmental group Earthjustice, commented after the ruling that the Supreme Court is moving the country into uncertain territory by taking power away from elected branches of government to promote its agenda of reducing regulations. He argued that conservative justices are significantly altering the government's structure so that the President and Congress have less authority to safeguard the public, while giving corporations more opportunities to challenge regulations for financial gain. Sankar believes this decision jeopardizes the legitimacy of many regulations that ensure safety, protect the environment and homes, and maintain fair competition among businesses.
Groups representing guns, e-cigarettes, farms, timber, and home-building industries supported the fishermen in the case. Conservative groups involved in previous Supreme Court cases that restricted regulations on air and water pollution also supported the fishermen's position.
The fishermen filed a lawsuit to challenge a 2020 regulation that would have allowed a fee potentially exceeding $700 per day, although no one ended up paying it.
In lawsuits filed separately in New Jersey and Rhode Island, the fishermen argued that Congress did not authorize federal regulators to mandate that fishermen pay for monitors. They were unsuccessful in lower courts, which upheld the regulation based on the Chevron decision.
The Supreme Court considered two cases involving the same issue because Justice Jackson was not involved in the New Jersey case due to her previous role as an appeals court judge. However, she participated in the case from Rhode Island, where the entire court was involved.
SOURCE: AP News