Background
Chevron deference (“Chevron”) has been a cornerstone principle of administrative law for nearly forty years. Essentially, Chevron requires courts to defer or rule in the agency’s favor when a statute is the basis for a Court’s decision on an issue before it. Under Chevron, the Court’s decision is limited to determining whether the agency’s action was permissible based on the agency’s interpretation of the statute.
The Chevron Two Step
There are two steps to the Chevron doctrine. The first step requires the Court to recognize whether the law requires or forbids the agency interpretation of a legislative directive. If the Court finds that the agency is making an interpretation within the vague boundaries of the law, then the Court cannot implement its own interpretation through statutory analysis. The second step of Chevron requires a finding that the agency interpretation is reasonable. However, if step one is satisfied then it is very likely the agency will succeed on step two.
Chevron & Herring Fishing Regulations
Chevron will be under review by the Supreme Court as a result of herring fishery regulations. However, the Court made clear that any published opinion will solely be interpreting the extent to which Chevron is a Constitutional doctrine. It did not accept review as to whether federal agencies correctly interpreted the law. The issue at hand arose from federal agencies requiring fishers to absorb the cost of their own third-party monitors when there are no available federally funded observers. Such third-party monitors can cost up to 700 dollars a day. These expenses result from some herring vessels spending multiple weeks at sea and the costs of private observers becomes prohibitively expensive.
Should Chevron Stand?
However, for the vast majority of interested parties, the plight of the fishermen is of little interest. The crux of the issue is whether Chevron should stand. If is overruled, then the current status of administrative law will be turned on its head. For those defending the Chevron doctrine, they believe that the judge should not be interpreting a vague legislative directive. Rather, if there are multiple reasonable interpretations, it should be Constitutional for the agency in charge of carrying out the statute’s directive to decide. Those dismissive of Chevron and its nearly 40-year legacy find the doctrine to be unconstitutional and a perversion of federal power. Allowing administrative agencies to act as the legislative branch removes the responsibility of elected representatives and entangles the branches of government.
Chevron has arguably harmed agencies and has been a negative to the American public. Agencies are quietly transformed during each Presidential administration. Agency appointees by the new administration will institute new rule making, often in direct conflict with past statutory interpretations. This apparent discrpancy is due to the vastly permissive nature of Chevron deference. Thus, Americans become ensnared within an oscillating political vacuum regarding laws that impact everyday life.
Conclusion
Agencies, courts, and the legislature have been reliant on this doctrine for decades. A full or partial overruling by the Supreme Court would result in a seismic shift in operations of administrative law. As the decision will inevitably cause change within water law, Schroeder Law will thoughtfully guide clients through these turbulent times. Follow along with the Chevron doctrine by watching for updates on our blog: Blog – Schroeder Law Offices, PC (water-law.com).
