On January 17, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, challenging a federal rule that requires commercial fishing vessels to pay for the onboard observers who monitor their catches.
These cases question whether judges should defer to agencies’ interpretation of gaps and ambiguities in the laws they implement under the Chevron doctrine. A decision that limits or overturns the doctrine could have significant implications for federal regulators.
Harvard Law Professor and EELP Founding Director Jody Freeman and Andy Mergen, visiting professor and director of the Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at HLS, have been answering questions about Chevron and how the Supreme Court’s decision will impact federal regulations.
Jody Freeman and Andrew Mergen, Reply to David French, Undoing ‘Chevron’ Would Duly Shift Power Back to Congress
Jody Freeman and Andrew Mergen’s response to New York Times columnist David French, who argued in a recent column that the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC when it decides Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce.
Op-Ed: Will the Supreme Court Show a Little Humility?
Jody Freeman and Andrew Mergen wrote an op-ed for the New York Times on how two cases recently argued before the Supreme Court could restrict the authority of federal agencies and upend decades of precedent.
‘Chevron deference’ faces existential test (Harvard Gazette)
Jody Freeman explains why the Supreme Court is revisiting Chevron deference after 40 years and the potential implications for regulators.
CleanLaw Podcast: The Loper Bright Case and Fate of the Chevron Doctrine with Jody Freeman and Andy Mergen
Jody Freeman and Andy Mergen discuss a case before the US Supreme Court this fall, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which petitioners have asked the Court to overrule the Chevron doctrine — a legal doctrine that governs when a court should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law. The case arises under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which authorizes requiring commercial fishing vessels to carry onboard observers but doesn’t specify that the fishermen should pay for those observers.
More In the News
Case over fishing law could hamstring the SEC and DOL (Investment News)
Jody Freeman: Supreme Court herring fishermen case ‘about power’ (NewsNation)
The Relentless Attack on Government as We Know It (Broken Law Podcast)
Why a Supreme Court decision on fishing boats could change everything (The Verge)
‘Fisherman’s Blues’ Could Lead Supreme Court to Overturn Chevron (Bloomberg Law)
How a Fishery Case Fits Into a Long-Game Effort to Sap Regulation of Business (New York Times)
A Supreme Court Poised to Gut the Administrative State (KPFA)
A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer (New York Times)