HomeNewsSupreme Court ruling rips Joe Biden's big government agenda to shreds

Supreme Court ruling rips Joe Biden’s big government agenda to shreds


Related stories

The woes for Joe Biden continue. He’s taking loss after loss.

As the Supreme Court’s latest ruling has ripped Joe Biden’s big government agenda to shreds.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Small Fishing Companies, Overturns Chevron Deference

In a landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of small fishing companies in their lawsuits against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), overturning a precedent that had expanded the power of the administrative state for decades.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, sided with the fishermen, reversing the 1984 landmark case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Lower courts had relied on the Chevron decision to uphold NOAA’s rule that forced companies to pay $700 per day — approximately 20% of their revenue — to cover the salaries of federally mandated on-board observers. The principle of Chevron deference, stemming from this case, instructed courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes when the language was ambiguous.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared in the majority opinion. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act] requires.”

The lawsuits were initiated by small fishing companies after NOAA required businesses to pay for the on-board monitors based on its interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the law governing fishery management. In both Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, lower courts deferred to the agency’s interpretation of the law, citing the Chevron ruling.

Chief Justice Roberts criticized Chevron as “a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”

“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities,” Roberts wrote. “Courts do.”

Critics of the Chevron doctrine argued that it allowed agencies to assert their interpretations of the law without significant judicial resistance, thus giving the government an automatic upper hand in court and raising concerns about the separation of powers.

The New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA) underscored the burden NOAA’s rule placed on businesses in an amicus brief. The association argued that the brief training given to sea monitors did not prepare them for the harsh conditions on board, creating safety concerns and forcing crews to bear the burden.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the majority for overreaching. “The majority disdains restraint and grasps for power,” she wrote. “Its justification comes down, in the end, to this: Courts must have more say over regulation of the provision of health care, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems, and so on. A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority.”

Mark Chenoweth, President of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), celebrated the decision. “The dismantling of the unlawful Administrative State has officially begun,” he stated. “NCLA’s fishermen clients have landed the biggest catch of their lives by persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to take its thumb off the scale when ordinary Americans are contesting unlawful government regulations. When NCLA was founded less than seven years ago, taking down Chevron deference was priority number one, because agencies have used it so often to violate people’s civil liberties. That ability ends today!”

Reaction to Chevron Reversal

The Chevron case was a big deal that virtually no one knew about. It has been bureaucratic red tape that has been strangling businesses as federal government agencies have been able to effectively interpret the law however they want to by regulating industries how they see fit.

The issue was over whether or not laws passed by Congress were “clear,” and if they were not, then federal agencies were able to “fill in the gaps” so to speak and effectively play the legislative game themselves from the desk of bureaucracy. Here’s the Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles giving a brief explanation on why this is such a big deal.

More mainline conservative and libertarian Republicans and commentators are praising the ruling from the Supreme Court as it is another win in the column of getting the federal government to stay out of industries where they don’t belong.

Vivek Ramaswamy has called the ruling “seismic,” praising the fact that unelected officials won’t have the power to control business with the wand of the “administrative” state any longer.

Some more conservative lawyers are trying to impress upon the public just how goundbreaking this ruling is and how pro-U.S. Constitution the overturning of Chevron is. Retired lawyer Ken Gardner says that he “can’t understate how important” the death of Chevron is.

The Conservative Column will keep you updated on any major Supreme Court rulings and proceedings.


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments