(TheRedAlertNews.com) – In a pivotal decision marking a tremendous conservative victory, the United States Supreme Court has substantially curtailed the authority of non-elected executive branch agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes—a practice historically utilized by Democrat administrations to enforce additional regulations.
The Court’s 6-3 verdict overturned the landmark 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, The Daily Wire reports.
Analyst Henry Olsen commented on the impact of the Chevron decision, stating, “It authorized a massive shift in power from Congress and the courts to the president.”
He noted that most administrative agencies affected by the Chevron decision are managed by presidential appointees, who, despite their expertise, make decisions that are essentially political in nature.
According to Olsen, such decisions should constitutionally be made by elected officials.
Ed Whelan, an attorney, criticized the Chevron doctrine for its broad interpretation of statutory ambiguities.
“Under Chevron, a statutory ambiguity, no matter why it is there, becomes a license authorizing an agency to change positions as much as it likes. Chevron accordingly has undermined the very ‘rule of law’ values that stare decisis exists to secure,” Whelan said.
An article in Slate highlighted the judicial reliance on Chevron during President Barack Obama’s administration to support new progressive regulations, noting, “The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents.”
The Supreme Court’s recent decision concerned the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, where fishermen sued Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo.
They challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service, a subagency of the Commerce Department, which mandated them to finance the salaries of federal inspectors required onboard their vessels.
The conservative Heritage Foundation elucidated that the fishermen argued there was no legal basis for this obligation as per the Fisheries Service.
Citing the Chevron ruling, the Fisheries Service claimed that the statutory silence granted them the authority in question, leading to the stipulation that fishermen should bear the cost of inspector salaries.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit initially sided with the Fisheries Service.
However, in their Supreme Court appeal, the plaintiffs questioned whether Chevron should be overturned or at least clarified that statutory silence on controversial powers, specifically granted elsewhere in a narrow manner, does not imply ambiguity warranting deference to the agency.
The Supreme Court asserted that under the Chevron doctrine, judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes—even when courts disagree with such interpretations—was often mandatory.
They further explained that the Administrative Procedure Act mandates that courts use their independent judgment to determine if an agency has acted within its legal boundaries, emphasizing that courts should not defer to agency interpretations simply due to statutory ambiguities.
“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” the court declared.
Copyright 2024, TheRedAlertNews.com
