How a case about fishing boat observers could upend American law

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases about the cost of observers on fishing boats. This modest-sounding case, though, could fundamentally reshape American law.

These cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, are being used to challenge what has been known as the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine (based on a Supreme Court case from 1984) holds that courts should give deference to the decisions of administrative agencies, and set them aside only if they are not “reasonable.”

Much of federal law passed by Congress is relatively broad, and the day-to-day implementation of the law is left to federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or (as in these cases) the National Marine Fisheries Service. The administrative agencies are the entities responsible for issuing rules that govern the areas in question. After Chevron, courts would defer to those agency decisions so long as the decisions were a reasonable interpretation of federal law.

The challengers in Loper Bright and Relentless argue that the Chevron doctrine leaves too much power in the hands of administrative agencies. It should be courts, not administrative agencies, that are the arbiters of federal law. And because, the challengers argue, administrative rules can be vague and ambiguous, those rules should not be provided special deference in court.

The defenders of Chevron argue that the doctrine has been in place since 1984, and as a result the economy relies on its operation. Further, administrative agencies are the ones with specialized, technical knowledge about the areas they govern. As a result, those agencies are in a better position to make rules about those areas then a court.

The Supreme Court could leave Chevron in place, overrule it in its entirety, or modify it in some manner. A decision on these cases is expected this autumn.