In a landmark decision on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine, marking a significant shift in judicial interpretation that will impact various sectors, including agriculture.
The justices reviewed appeals from two fishing companies contesting lower court decisions that permitted the National Marine Fisheries Service to mandate commercial fishermen to partially finance the observer program. The companies, New Jersey’s Loper Bright Enterprises and Rhode Island’s Relentless Inc, contended that Congress did not empower the agency, which operates under the U.S. Commerce Department, to create such a program.
The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., directed courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes if Congress had not clearly spoken on the issue.
This principle was intended to grant agencies flexibility in implementing laws passed by Congress. However, critics argued that it gave too much power to unelected bureaucrats.
The 40-year-old decision has underpinned thousands of regulations by numerous federal agencies but has been a longstanding target for conservatives and business groups. Meanwhile, critics argue that it grants excessive power to the executive branch, often referred to as the administrative state.
Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the opinion for the majority in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, emphasized that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to independently interpret legal questions and determine the scope of agency authority.
Roberts contended that Chevron deference undermined the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws and ensuring accountability in government actions.
This ruling holds particular significance for farmers like Arlen Foster from South Dakota, who has been engaged in a prolonged legal battle with the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the classification of wetlands on his property.
The decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for regulatory oversight and the relationship between federal agencies and the courts. It raises questions about the future of environmental regulations, agricultural policies, and other areas where federal agencies play a significant role in interpreting and implementing laws.
The ruling has also sparked debates over how it will impact the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, particularly in shaping policy affecting industries reliant on regulatory clarity and consistency.
