Sen. Ron Wyden introduced legislation Friday that would upend the Supreme Court’s recent ruling giving judges power over administrative agency decision-making.
The Oregon Democrat said the Restoring Congressional Authority Act would give federal agencies the authority to implement laws passed by Congress as they see fit without judges interfering with their work.
The bill would amend part of the Administrative Procedure Act to give judicial deference to experts at federal agencies. It also gives Congress a path to fast-track disapproval of a court decision reversing an agency’s action.
“At every turn, MAGA judges are hell-bent on dragging our country backward,” Mr. Wyden said. “With the help of Republicans in Congress, Donald Trump spent his time in office packing our nation’s highest courts with right-wing extremists willing to legislate from the bench. From the rights of women to make decisions about their own bodies to health care, the climate crisis and everything in between, these MAGA judges are doing the bidding of special interests who want to rip away our fundamental freedoms. Our country is founded on checks and balances, and it’s time to restore that balance by putting a much-needed check on the federal judiciary.”
It’s one of a few bills Senate Democrats introduced this week to push back on the 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, on Thursday introduced the No Kings Act, which would preclude the Supreme Court from hearing legal challenges to his legislation that says presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal prosecutions.
Most notably, Democrats have been distressed over the justices’ July 1 ruling that was seen as a win for former President Donald Trump in his push for immunity from prosecution.
The justices split ideologically in what court watchers have said is one of the most significant cases to be heard in decades, where the justices ruled that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken under their core presidential functions, presumed immunity for all official acts, and no immunity for nonofficial acts.
Mr. Wyden’s bill targets another 6-3 ideological split over what is known as Chevron deference.
The case was brought by fishermen challenging a 2020 federal rule that made them pay for federal agencies to monitor their catch.
The fishermen said the original law didn’t envision any such payment requirement and the Commerce Department was acting illegally in passing the compliance costs on to the privately owned boats.
Lower courts sided with the agency, citing Chevron deference, which is a 40-year-old precedent having courts defer to the feds on decision-making when a law passed by Congress is ambiguous so long as the agency interpretation is reasonable.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the 1984 Chevron ruling got it wrong, muting Congress and pushing judges to defer rather than judge. He said it’s time to restore the judging.
The decision overturned the precedent from Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., in which left-leaning groups attacked the Reagan administration’s environmental decision-making. The high court, at the time, said a court should defer to an agency when a law is unclear.
Both Mr. Wyden and Mr. Schumer’s bills are unlikely to get the necessary 60 votes to override a filibuster in the upper chamber, where Democrats hold only a 51-49 edge.
Their chances in the Republican-led House are even slimmer.
— Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.