Nearly four decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous order that conservative legal scholars have been seeking to overturn ever since. Now, as the court plans to revisit the case, Gov. Brian Kemp is joining the long-running movement to nix the precedent.
The Republican filed a brief Monday that seeks to reverse the 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. It held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous provisions in the law so long as they are deemed “reasonable.”
While that may sound like an arcane courtroom debate, such a decision by the High Court’s 6-3 conservative majority could have far-reaching consequences for the federal regulatory process.
The government has routinely cited the precedent in environmental and financial cases, and lower courts have followed it in key cases involving climate change and consumer protection.
Several of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have criticized the doctrine in opinions over the years, with Justice Clarence Thomas arguing in 2015 that it “wrests from courts the ultimate interpretive authority ‘to say what the law is’” and hands it to the executive branch.
Advocates of the doctrine say it would make it easier for businesses and others to challenge regulations designed to preserve the environment, protect consumers from fraudulent schemes and helps ensure that food and pharmaceuticals are safe.
In a statement, Kemp said overturning the doctrine is a “step towards cutting burdensome regulations and ensuring that Georgia’s policies reflect the will of its citizens and not the dictates of bureaucrats in Washington.”
His 33-page brief argues that the court’s 1984 ruling undercuts states by shifting power to federal agencies keen to “extend their regulatory purview through self-serving statutory interpretations.”
“If Congress wants to delegate powers—individually or in the aggregate—it should make its intent clear,” read the filing, penned by Kemp executive counsel David Dove.
The case stems from a debate over a federal rule that requires herring fishing boats to pay for a government monitor on board while they’re trawling the Atlantic. The court is likely to decide on the issue in its next term.
About the Author
