Contact: James Valvo, firstname.lastname@example.org
* * *
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
Paul Clement; Cause of Action Institute Petition SCOTUS to Review Chevron in Fishermen Case
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement and Cause of Action Institute petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to review a case that challenges an unlawful federal regulation requiring herring fishermen to pay the costs of hosting government-mandated observers on their boats. Central to the case is Chevron deference and the ability of federal courts to overrule executive branch actions that have no basis in law.
From Reuters, Nov. 10:
New Jersey fishing firms want the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court order that forces them to pay the salaries of federally mandated onboard monitors, arguing it’s the perfect opportunity to overturn a cornerstone precedent that gives federal agencies wide latitude to interpret laws.
The fishing companies say the … rule is too onerous, requiring them to not only give up valuable space on their small boats for the observers but also pay them over $700 a day. …
A petition filed by attorney Paul Clement with the high court Thursday asked the court to take the case and find the rule requiring fishermen to pay for the monitors is inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens fishing act or to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That ruling, widely known as “Chevron deference,” directs judges to defer to agencies’ interpretation of laws that may be ambiguous. …
Chevron deference has been widely cited by federal courts to back agency rulemaking … [and] viewed with increasing skepticism in recent years, especially among conservatives, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch, while serving as a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, criticized the precedent in 2016, saying it allows the executive branch of the federal government to “swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power.”
Read the full Reuters article here.