The most important SCOTUS case of the term, explained
As Lloyd Bridges’ character Steve McCronkey said (sort of) in “Airplane!,” looks like I picked the wrong week to fall behind on explaining Supreme Court opinions.
In just this week, we’ve gotten a narrowing of the obstruction statute used to prosecute January 6 defendants (and potentially a certain ex-president), a non-quite reaffirmation of the supremacy of federal law, and the allowance of a fine on using a protection from the elements while sleeping outside to stand.
Don’t worry, y’all, we will get to those, as well as some general explainers. But perhaps the biggest case of this term (as discussed previously by a certain smart and particularly handsome analyst) was about the cost of observers on fishing boats. Not making that up.
By a 6-3 vote, the Court overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 case that gave rise to what became known as the Chevron doctrine. Basically, this doctrine meant that if Congress did not directly address an issue in dispute between parties, courts would defer to an agency’s interpretation of the statute so long as it was reasonable.
In the federal system, agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and many, many others are created by Congress by what is called “enabling legislation.” These agencies then become part of the Executive Branch, the purpose of which is to pass regulations of the particular area designated by Congress for the agency to oversee.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called the Chevron doctrine “fundamentally misguided.” Roberts said that the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that sets out procedures for agencies to follow as well as means for courts to review those procedures, requires courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment.” As a result, Roberts said, any doctrine that would require deference to an agency interpretation would violate the APA’s directive for courts to use independent judgment.
In responding to the concerns that agencies possess significant technical expertise in their subject areas, Roberts said that “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions” and that “[c]ourts interpret statutes, no matter the context, based on the traditional tools of statutory construction, not individual policy preferences.” Roberts also said that while agency determinations may no longer be given deference, it does not mean that they cannot be given “respect” in the court’s interpretation of a statute.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito joined with Roberts’ majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote concurring opinions.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan began by asking he rhetorical question of, when Congress created an agency and did not answer a particular question, who should answer it? Should it be a court, or the agency that Congress created to regulate the area in question.
Gaps in statutes, Kagan wrote, are unavoidable, and in the case of agencies frequently involve “scientific or technical subject matter” which “demand a detailed understanding of complex and interdependent regulatory programs.” Further, agencies answer to the President, who ultimately answers to the voters for policy decisions, while the Court faces no such public accountability.
The Chevron doctrine “has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest,” and that overruling the doctrine will create a “jolt to the legal system.”
No, I don't know what “warp and woof” means, either.
Kagan also expressed skepticism that agency determinations will receive the “respect” that Roberts discussed in his majority opinion. “If the majority thinks that the same judges who argue today about where ‘ambiguity’ resides are not going to argue tomorrow about what ‘respect’ requires, I fear it will be gravely disappointed.”
Further, Kagan criticized the sweeping power the Court has claimed for itself, saying that “a rule of judicial humility has given way to a rule of judicial hubris” and that in “one fell swoop” the Court has given “itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law.”
The two cases in question were Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
If you like this content, please make sure to like and share it on your social media of choice.
