"Chevron Deference" To Federal Agencies Is About To End, And That Is Progress.
The awful facts of the two cases that will end the 40 year old rule proves the Left has no guardrails and little self preservation instinct.
40 years after making its original mistake, the Supreme Court seems poised to end the Chevron Doctrine. This past week, the Court heard oral arguments on two cases concerning Federal fisheries “regulations” and, based on the comments of the Justices, as well as the known positions of some sitting Justices, it is almost certain that the unwise rule will be abolished.
As per usual, the MainStreamMedia is doing its best to obscure the important issues underlying the cases and the doctrine. For example, the over communist New York Times headline about the case was: “Conservative Judges Appear Skeptical Of Agencies’ Power.” Similarly, The Washington Post screamed: “Conservatives want to unleash the courts. They might regret asking.” Not to be outdone, Leftwing outlets like MSNBC claimed, via lunatic legal commentators Elie Mystal and Katie Phang: “It’s a power grab!” Thus, the citizen obtaining his or her “news” from mainstream outlets likely believes that Chevron Deference is something that “conservatives” do not like and that Federal agencies should not have power. Worse, considering the mainstream coverage of the Supreme Court as “far right wing,” he or she likely thinks the Court is to take “power” better left to the Executive Branch. This is a great example of how our cancerous communication structure harms our Republic.
Contrary to the assertions of the fraudulent Press, the Supreme Court is acting properly and correcting its original mistake. The mistake came in 1984 when the Court determined that judges must defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes, even if the courts might have ruled differently. Because the case in which it reached the conclusion was styled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, it became known as the “Chevron Doctrine” or “Chevron Deference.”
As the years ensued, it has become one of the most cited cases in American law and, not for good reason. As one might have expected, if given the deference, an agency likely would push the envelope and enhance its power and that is precisely what happened. Worse, the doctrine encouraged Congress to write vague laws, which further enabled rogue agencies. While it is surprising that it took this long to correct the mistake, it is a positive sign that the Supreme Court appear poised to act.
To understand just how far Federal agencies have been willing to abuse their power, consider the facts of the two cases before the Court. In 1976, Congress passed the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. It provided for the management of marine fisheries in United States waters. In on provision of the act, the National Marine Fisheries Service (a subsidiary agency of the United States Department of Commerce) was permitted to require fishing vessels to "carry" federal monitors on board to enforce the agency's regulations. However, a problem arose over the years as the National Marine Fisheries Service’s budget began to get stretched and Congress refused increased spending. At this juncture, the agency simply created a rule requiring the fisherman to pay for the monitors, often at prohibitive costs that rendered the boats unprofitable. When the fisheries sued, both the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the First Circuit Court of Appeals found for the agency. In both instances, the Courts claimed Chevron Deference required that the Federal government prevail.
It is hard to think of worse facts for the government. Setting aside that Chevron was flawed at the outset because courts, not Federal agencies, are charged with interpreting the laws, we now have reached the point where the agency not only is writing its own laws, its funding itself as well. If this were not bad enough, its funding mechanism is being used to bankrupt entities and potentially entire industries out of existence. Unfortunately, these case are not outliers, they are the norm.
Once again the Founders have been proven right—once given power, government tends to abuse it. It is a good sign to the Supreme Court correcting this error and limiting agency power to that which the Constitution provides.
Another positive sign is the fact that the Left cannot see how obvious their Constitution overreach has become to ordinary Americans. When called on the ridiculous “rule” requiring that business fund the monitor that the agency was permitted, not required, to place on vessels, it should have respected Constitutional boundaries and come up with some other solution. It does not take a genius to appreciate that one would not have wanted the wisdom of the Chevron Doctrine tested against facts as bad as these.
This inability for self reflection, if it continues, likely will lead to more Americans becoming wise to the dangers of Leftist government and further corrections by the courts. Time will tell. Until then, be thankful that the Supreme Court is poised to pushback on the ever expanding Federal regulatory state.