The Supreme Court agreed to take up a case with significant implications for its next term, concerning a dispute on whether to abolish a legal doctrine giving agencies a wide scope to define their own powers.
The high court will take up an appeal by four New Jersey fishing companies asking the justices to overturn the landmark 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling. That decision instructed courts to defer to administrative agencies when they provide a reasonable interpretation of a vague statute.
DISORDER IN THE COURT: THE IMPACT OF THE SUPREME COURT DOBBS LEAK ONE YEAR LATER
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, recused from the case known as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
A lower court ruled in favor of the U.S. government in a challenge to a conservation program overseen by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The program started in 2020 under former President Donald Trump and is being defended by the Biden administration.
The fishing companies are asking the Supreme Court to overturn the “Chevron deference” and are represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who has had numerous past successes on behalf of his clients at the high court.
“We are delighted that the court took this case not only to potentially deliver justice to these fishermen, but also to reconsider a doctrine that has enabled the widespread expansion of unchecked executive authority. We look forward to our day in court,” Clement said.
The fishermen petitioned the Supreme Court in November to overrule a funding scheme that would force them to forfeit nearly 20% of their pay to at-sea monitors, a scheme they argue was never mandated by Congress. Their petition is supported by 38 organizations and individuals as well as 18 Republican attorneys general.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Agreeing to take up the case sets up the high court’s next term as another potential landmark season where the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority have another chance at stripping back agency authority, as it has done so in other cases where administrative power questions were at hand.
Last year, the justices voted 6-3 to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, a move liberal Justice Elena Kagan said stripped the agency “of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.'”
