WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is set to hear major challenges to the power of federal agencies, as commercial fishermen contest a fee requirement that could potentially limit government regulations. This case represents a significant opportunity for business and conservative interests to curtail the scope of regulatory control, with billions of dollars at stake. The court, reshaped in recent years by conservative influences, is being asked to overturn a long-standing decision that supports regulatory power in areas such as the environment, public health, workplace safety, and consumer protections.
At the center of the dispute is a 2020 rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service that imposes fees on herring fishermen to pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake. Lower courts have relied on the Chevron decision, a landmark ruling from 1984, to uphold this requirement. According to Chevron, federal agencies have the authority to fill in the details of laws when they are ambiguous as long as they provide a reasonable interpretation. However, the current Supreme Court, featuring a conservative majority including three justices appointed by Donald Trump, has displayed increasing skepticism towards the power of federal agencies. Four justices, namely Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, have expressed doubts about the Chevron decision.
Opponents of the Chevron doctrine argue that it gives undue deference to government bureaucrats, essentially allowing them to make decisions without sufficient judicial oversight. They contend that judges must exercise their own independent judgment to interpret the law. Lawyers representing the fishing boat company Relentless and Persistence, based in Rhode Island, argue that agencies are effectively acting as both judge and litigant in their own cases, leading to a lack of fairness in the judicial process.
On the other side, the Biden administration is defending the existing rulings, warning that overturning Chevron would cause a significant disruption in the legal system. Supporters of the Chevron decision emphasize the important role it plays in allowing federal agencies to leverage their scientific and technical expertise when interpreting federal statutes. Environmental, health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and organized labor, along with Democrats at the local and national levels, have all urged the Supreme Court to uphold Chevron.
In addition to business interests, conservative groups that have previously intervened in cases related to air and water pollution regulations are supporting the commercial fishermen. The Supreme Court is set to hear two cases on this issue, with one justice recused due to prior involvement. Fishing boats from Rhode Island are the subject of the case that will be considered by the full court.
This case represents a pivotal moment for the Supreme Court and its interpretation of federal agency power. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the regulatory landscape and the balance of power between branches of government. As the court listens to arguments from both sides, the fishing industry, environmental groups, and ordinary citizens are eagerly awaiting the decision that will shape the future of government regulation in the United States.
