Ag Groups Take Stand as U.S. Supreme Court Tackles Federal Regulations Case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments that could dramatically reshape the landscape of how federal regulations are promulgated and interpreted, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) wrote in Capital Update.

NPPC joined other agricultural organizations and business groups in submitting a friend-of-the-court brief in this pivotal case revolving around an interpretation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of a law affecting commercial fishing.

Specifically, the case addressed whether herring fishermen are required to pay for the federal monitors on their boats. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with NMFS, citing the 1984 Supreme Court case, that granted deference to agencies’ interpretation of statutes – the so-called Chevron deference, the article said.
 
NPPC and the other organizations urged the high court to overrule the Chevron decision in their brief, as it “puts a heavy thumb on the scale on the side of agencies when a less constrained judicial inquiry would favor” those challenging a law’s interpretation. “Chevron incentivizes a finding of statutory ambiguity, rather than a deep inquiry into the meaning of statutory language.”
 
"Chevron deference has been the foundation of the dramatic growth in federal regulations and the transfer of near unlimited power to unelected federal bureaucrats that has taken place over the last 40 years," NPPC wrote.

The brief argues that the judicially created “Chevron deference” rule allows agencies and courts to avoid having to do their job and instead gives federal agencies carte blanche to take whatever action bureaucrats desire, rather than what Congress may have reasonably intended.