{"id":41296,"date":"2024-01-08T05:00:09","date_gmt":"2024-01-08T13:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yieldpro.com\/?p=41296"},"modified":"2024-01-08T19:22:40","modified_gmt":"2024-01-09T03:22:40","slug":"supreme-court-preview-for-january-2024-chevron-deference-breathes-its-last","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yieldpro.com\/2024\/01\/supreme-court-preview-for-january-2024-chevron-deference-breathes-its-last\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court preview for January 2024: Chevron Deference breathes its last?"},"content":{"rendered":"
In one of the biggest cases of the current term, the Supreme Court\u2019s calendar for January 2024<\/a> features arguments about the limit of federal regulatory powers.<\/p>\n In all, there are nine sets of arguments listed for the January session, which lasts from Jan. 8-17. But the most attention will be focused on the final two arguments in a potential landmark ruling on the Chevron doctrine precedent.<\/p>\n In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/a>, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce<\/a>, the justices will settle a controversy involving commercial fishing that may have broader implications for the Chevon doctrine.<\/p>\n The legal concept of the Chevron doctrine<\/a>, or Chevron deference, dates back to a 1984 Supreme Court decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Under Chevron, if a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to a federal agency\u2019s interpretation of the statute if it is deemed reasonable.<\/p>\n Several current justices, however, have openly questioned the constitutional basis of the Chevron doctrine and through these two new cases, may seek to establish a new precedent to replace it.<\/p>\n In Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless, a group of fisherman and small fishing companies are challenging the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service to require fishing vessel operators to pay the salaries of the federal observers who oversee the vessels\u2019 operations while at sea.<\/p>\n The vessel operators want the court to decide if the agency has assumed powers under the Chevron doctrine to force compliance, or to overturn the doctrine altogether.<\/p>\n The specific question in front of the justices leaves little doubt of the decision\u2019s potential significance: \u201cWhether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.\u201d<\/p>\n Other notable cases set for January<\/strong><\/p>\n On Jan. 9, the Court will hear arguments in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado,<\/a> California. El Dorado County charged George Sheetz, the builder of a \u201cmodest manufactured house,\u201d a monetary exaction fee of $23,420 to help finance unrelated road improvements.<\/p>\n Sheetz claims the county did not determine the fee had an \u201cessential nexus\u201d and \u201crough proportionality\u201d to the purported impacts associated with his modest construction project, in conflict with two prior Supreme Court decisions. The county says its actions were authorized by legislation.<\/p>\n