SCOTUS Appears Likely to Weaken Power of Regulatory Agencies

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases challenging a doctrine that empowers federal agencies.

For Context: Four fishing companies are asking the court to overturn a 1984 ruling that created the “Chevron deference,” which instructs courts to defer to administrative agencies within reason over statute disputes. The companies bringing the case are challenging a rule that mandates certain fishing vessels partially pay for government-contract regulators to accompany fishers to ensure adherence to regulatory standards, reducing the vessel’s incomes by up to 20%, according to government figures. Lower courts sided with regulatory agencies in accordance with the Chevron deference.

Details: The court’s conservative majority appeared to be leaning in favor of the challengers, indicating a potential ruling that would weaken or end Chevron. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued overturning Chevron would cause an “unwarranted shock to the legal system,” to which Justice Brett Kavanaugh replied that there are “shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in.” Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that Chevron hurts “the immigrant, the veteran seeking his benefits, the social security disability applicant, who have no power to influence agencies.” The court’s liberal justices appeared to side with the defenders of Chevron. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced concern that “if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker.”

How the Media Covered It: Outlets across the spectrum covered the arguments, broadly reaching the same conclusion regarding the justices’ stances on the case.