Washington (CNN) Supreme Court agreed In a case that could affect how the government tackles everything from climate change to public health to immigration, it must decide Monday whether to reexamine longstanding precedent and significantly reduce the power of federal agencies.
Conservative justices have long sought to limit regulatory power, arguing that Washington has too much control over American businesses and private lives. The justices have been gradually scaling back federal power, but the new case will allow them to take a much broader step forward.
The justices announced an appeal from anglers in the Atlantic who said the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to pay government inspectors aboard fishing vessels.
Their move means they will revisit a 1984 case — Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council — This sets forth factors for determining when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of a statute.
A suspicious eye is cast on the so-called conservatives on the bench Chevron Deference argues that agencies are often insulated from the usual checks and balances necessary for separation of powers.
“The idea that agencies should be allowed to resolve ambiguities in the laws they implement is a central feature of modern administrative law,” said Steve Vladek, a CNN analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
“If the courts, rather than the agencies, were responsible for resolving ambiguities even in laws that give the executive branch high-tech authority, that would mean more power for the courts — and less for the executive branch — in everything from environmental regulation to immigration to public health. Meat probes to telecommunications policy,” Vladek said. “In that sense, it is consistent with the current conservative majority system of weakening the executive state — in favor of judicial power to answer all of these questions.”
The case will be heard in the next term, and a verdict could be handed down in 2024.
A separate case already on the judges’ calendar for the next session, which begins in October, offers a chance to rein in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which currently oversees practices related to mortgages, car loans and credit cards.
Government inspectors and location on fishing boats
In the lawsuit, the herring fishermen, represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, argue that their boats typically only accommodate five or six people. Now, they’re not required to carry observers (who see to it that federal regulations regarding fishery safety are being followed) but the National Marine Fisheries Service says they must also pay the observers’ salaries.
Clement argued that the agency exceeded its authority and required direct and unequivocal congressional authorization to make the request. “In a country that values limited government and the separation of powers, such extraordinary power requires clear grants from Congress,” he said.
A federal appeals court deferred to the company.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloger told the justices that the agency was acting within its jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and that fishermen were not responsible for all costs. The restriction was put in place to combat overfishing off the coast of the United States.
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN’s Joan Biskubic contributed to this report.
