The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of commercial fisherman who challenged the U.S. government’s imposition of charges for onboard federal inspections.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturns so-called Chevron deference, a legal test that comes from a series of cases before the high court beginning with its unanimous 1984 decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Chevron deference essentially means that courts give deference to the expertise of the government’s administrative agencies in interpreting legislative statutes.
Commercial fishermen in New Jersey initiated the case, Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. The fishermen argued that they were unjustly charged by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2020 to pay for third-party, onboard monitors of their operations.
NOAA did this without Congress giving the agency authority to do so. The fishermen argued that the federal regulation violates Article 1 of the Constitution.
“Overregulation is imperiling the future of American fisheries and the maritime communities who depend on them,” Jerry Leeman, founder and CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association, said in a written statement. “Worse still, fishermen have long struggled to fight back, because Chevron deference skews the legal process in the government’s favor.”
“We thank the fishermen plaintiffs in this case, who are truly relentless,” Leeman added.
Judicial originalists have argued that Chevron deference places too much unimpeded power in the hands of government agencies. The new ruling shifts more power back to courts and legislative bodies.
Heritage Foundation fellow Steve Bradbury wrote earlier this year that the Supreme Court’s unanimous Chevron decision 40 years ago was a reaction to overreach by lower courts.
“When it handed down its Chevron opinion in 1984, the Supreme Court was reacting with some exasperation to a persistent pattern of flawed judicial intervention by the lower courts, particularly the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the court that hears the greatest volume of challenges to agency actions,” Bradbury wrote.
Those who argued in favor of Chevron deference say that the courts are ill-equipped to understand technical policies promulgated by government agencies and therefore should defer to bureaucratic expertise.
This is a breaking news story and may be updated.