broad expectations unless they can tie it to specific statutory language.6 A chart of impacts banks need to know can be found on the previous page. III. BACKGROUND The Chevron doctrine is dubbed the “bedrock of admin law.”7 This accidental landmark decision remains of high importance exemplified by: “its frequency of citation in law review articles. Chevron has been cited by 8,009 articles included in the Westlaw database.”8 The doctrine directs courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutory language in regards to the laws that they administer. This is under the provision that the interpretation is reasonable. The doctrine operates via a two-prong approach in which: first, courts determine whether Congress’s intent on the specific issue is clear. If the statute is clear it is held. However, if it is deemed ambiguous, the second step involves determining whether the agency’s interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute. If so, then the agency’s interpretation will be upheld by the court so long it is deemed reasonable. The aforementioned deference essentially acknowledges the expertise of federal agencies within their domains instead of court officials as well as ensures the consistent application of complex regulatory frameworks. This principle of judicial deference has been pivotal in allowing agencies to leverage their expertise in a wide variety of fields. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar penned in her case brief that Chevron is entitled to stare decisis and that its overruling: “would be a convulsive shock to the legal system… all three branches of government, regulated parties, and the public have arranged their affairs for decades with Chevron as the backdrop against which Congress legislates, agencies issue rules and orders, and courts resolve disputes about those agency actions.” Jody Freeman, a leading administrative law expert and the Archibald Cox Professor at Harvard Law School echoed these concerns and its implications: “There is a chance the court will jettison Chevron altogether and declare that the courts must decide all questions relating to statutory interpretation.9 That sounds eminently sensible on its face, but simply cannot work in practice.” Further warnings have been expressed by Jim Murphy, the National Wildlife Federation’s director of legal advocacy who stresses that: “It would give judges a lot more power to write very impactful regulatory provisions where those judges really don’t have a lot of expertise…the people who are charged with protecting our public health and protecting our natural resources are not going to have the tools they need,” he said, “and it’s going to result in people getting sick, people dying, places getting polluted. It’s going to have real impact for a very long time.”10 In recent years through Supreme Court hearings this doctrine has faced increasing scrutiny and calls for it to be considered unconstitutional. These dissents have reasoned over time that it grants excessive power to administrative agencies in a fashion that inadvertently undermines the role of the judiciary and fails to keep regulatory agencies in check. The Supreme Court has grown interest in curtailing agency deference most notable in its lack of usage or mention since 2016. The substantive issue that this case brings forth is whether the court should proceed with overruling Chevron or at least work on clarifying the notion of statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly, but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute and the how ambiguity should not lead to automatic deference to an agency. In sum, the stakes of this upcoming ruling are high as it will get to the bottom of whether to overturn or limit/clarify the doctrine. In the Loper case the statute was silent regarding observer salary which led to the deference in question. However, the fishermen are able to succeed in their case without uprooting the doctrine by arguing that Chevron does not apply since there is no mention of observer payout in the law. It is believed that the Court is leaning to eliminating the doctrine. IV. CONFLICTING POSITIONS FROM POLITICAL AND TRADE ARENAS Brief of Amici Curiae U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Dianne Feinstein, and Elizabeth Warren in Support of Respondents In a brief of Amici Curiae submitted by U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Dianne Feinstein, and Elizabeth Warren, the senators contend that Chevron is essential as it plays a crucial role in both effective and expertbased regulation. The senators emphasize that over the past century there has been positive impacts as a result of administrative regulations which have made society healthier, safer in areas such as the workplace, food sanitation, automobile safety, and more.11 They cite that these tangible improvements should not be overshadowed by the alleged false information provided by corporate businesses funneling money into think tanks, judicial confirmations, and elections in a way to “fund” deregulation.12 The lack of robust regulation would lead to detrimental consequences to public welfare. This brief also exalts the efficiency and expertise in regulation through Chevron. The senators argue that it has allowed agencies that possess the necessary expertise and capacity to better implement Congress’s vague policy objectives. Furthermore, by referring to experts in their respective industries via deference there is increased adaptation to new developments and complexities in a fashion that is not sustainable for Congress that does not have the resources to act as a multifaceted regulatory agency. This brief defends the notion that Chevron maintains a balance of powers among the three branches, maintains effective regulation that serves public interest, and counters corporate attempts to diminish regulation for mere profit. Brief of Amicus Curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Petitioners The brief from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”) sets forth that the Chevron doctrine has led to an overreach by the Executive Branch. They argue that Chevron was originally intended to prevent judicial overreach into the policymaking realm. However, in the case of modern administrative law the doctrine has allowed federal agencies to both create and enforce regulations without sufficient oversight of Congress and or the judiciary. They state that there has been a disruption in the balance that the Constitution delineates. The Chamber also posited that the current application of Chevron deference has resulted in a regulatory landscape where obligations and rules are changing unpredictably depending on agency interpretations. This result is concerning because businesses necessitate stable regulations to inform their investments. An economic piece that the brief highlights is the “astronomical” costs that arise due to the current regulatory framework that are inadvertently exacerbated by Chevron. Smaller businesses are cited to feel the brunt of compliance costs in comparison to larger corporations. In fact, the Chamber estimates regulatory costs to reach up to $1.9 trillion per year.13 The Chamber asserts that Congress should clearly define legal responsibilities via legislation instead of delegating authority to other agencies. Ultimately, the Chamber advocates for the overruling and/or clarification of the statutory silence on controversial powers in a way that does not automatically imply deference to agencies. The brief ends with the assertion that the Supreme Court should alter the current system to allow businesses to operate with greater certainty and fewer burdens imposed by the unpredictability of the regulatory environment. THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE ALLOWED FEDERAL AGENCIES TO INTERPRET AMBIGUOUS LAWS THROUGH REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT, WITH COURTS DEFERRING TO THESE AGENCIES’ EXPERTISE. OPPONENTS ARGUED THAT THIS WAS IMPROPER, AND CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, WRITING FOR THE MAJORITY, STATED THAT COURTS MUST NOW EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN AGENCY HAS ACTED WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 14 chevron doctrine overturned
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=