Supreme Court curbs federal agency powers, overturning 1984 precedent

(Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to federal regulatory power Friday by overturning a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer, handing a defeat to the Biden administration.

The justices ruled 6-3 to set aside lower courts’ rulings against fishing companies that challenged a government-run program partly funded by industry that monitored overfishing of herring off New England’s coast. It marked the latest decision in recent years powered by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority that hem in the authority of federal agencies.

The precedent that the court overturned arose from a ruling involving oil company Chevron that had called for judges to defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of U.S. laws deemed to be ambiguous. This doctrine, long opposed by conservatives and business interests, was called “Chevron deference.”

“Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling.

The court’s conservative justices were in the majority, with the liberal justices dissenting.

The Biden administration had defended the National Marine Fisheries Service regulation at issue and the Chevron deference doctrine. The fish conservation program was started in 2020 under former President Donald Trump.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan criticized the ruling, saying it once again elevates the Supreme Court’s power over other branches of the U.S. government.

“A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies,” Justice Kagan wrote.

The bid by the fishermen was supported by various conservative and corporate interest groups including billionaire Charles Koch’s network. The litigation is part of what has been termed the “war on the administrative state,” an effort to weaken the federal agency bureaucracy that interprets laws, crafts federal rules and implements executive action.