Supreme Court Weighs Challenge to Chevron Deference in Fishing Industry Case

Fishermen Take on Government over Costly Monitoring Requirements

In a case with far-reaching implications for the fishing industry and the balance of power between federal agencies and the courts, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in two consolidated cases: Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce.

At the heart of the dispute is a 2020 regulation that requires commercial fishing boats in the Northeast to carry human monitors on board to ensure compliance with fishing regulations. The fishermen argue that the regulation imposes an unfair financial burden, while the government contends that the monitors are necessary to protect marine resources.

But the cases also present a broader challenge to a longstanding legal precedent known as Chevron deference, which gives federal agencies broad authority to interpret the laws they enforce. Critics of Chevron deference argue that it grants too much power to unelected bureaucrats and undermines the role of the courts in interpreting the law.

The Herring Fishermen’s Plight

The plaintiffs in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo are a group of herring fishermen from Cape May, New Jersey. They argue that the 2020 regulation requiring them to pay approximately $700 per day for human monitors on their boats is financially ruinous.

“It’s going to put us out of business,” said John Loper, the owner of Loper Bright Enterprises. “We’re already struggling to make ends meet, and this new regulation is just the last straw.”

The fishermen point out that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the federal law that governs commercial fishing, explicitly requires owners of certain fishing boats to pay for their own monitors. But the law is silent on who is responsible for the monitoring costs on the herring boats used by the fishermen in this case.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency responsible for managing fisheries, has interpreted the law to mean that the fishermen are responsible for the costs. But the fishermen argue that this interpretation is unreasonable and that the government should bear the costs.

The Challenge to Chevron Deference

The fishermen in Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce are not only contesting the 2020 regulation, they are also challenging the legal principle of Chevron deference.

Chevron deference is a doctrine that was established by the Supreme Court in 1984 in the case Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The doctrine holds that when a law is ambiguous or silent on a specific situation, federal courts must defer to the interpretation of the law by the agency responsible for enforcing it.

Critics of Chevron deference argue that it grants too much power to government agencies and undermines the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law. They argue that agencies are often biased in favor of the industries they regulate and that they should not be given the power to interpret the laws that they enforce.

Oral Arguments Shed Light on Justices’ Views

The oral arguments in the two cases before the Supreme Court on Wednesday provided some insights into how the justices are likely to rule.

Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed skepticism during oral arguments, questioning the impact of the Chevron ruling on individuals who lack the power to influence agencies.

“What happens to the people who don’t have a seat at the table?” Gorsuch asked.

Gorsuch pointed out that the cases he encountered in the courts of appeals often involved marginalized individuals such as immigrants, veterans, and Social Security Disability applicants who have limited means to influence agencies.

He raised concerns that Chevron deference may have a disparate impact on different classes of persons and potentially benefit government agencies more than the individuals they are intended to protect.

Ruling Expected in Late June or Early July

The Supreme Court is anticipated to issue its rulings in these cases in late June or early July. The outcomes will have significant implications for the fishing industry and the broader debate surrounding the Chevron precedent.

If the Court strikes down the 2020 regulation, it would be a major victory for the fishermen and a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to protect marine resources.

If the Court upholds the regulation, it would be a setback for the fishermen and a reaffirmation of the Chevron precedent. It would also give the Biden administration a green light to continue implementing its regulatory agenda.

The Court’s decision in these cases is sure to be closely watched by the fishing industry, environmental groups, and legal scholars.