“Unelected Bureaucrats Shouldn’t Have This Much Power” – Questions Around Chevron Law Spark Debates

Gabriel RomanNov 2, 2023

Minute Read

The United States Supreme Court has an intense upcoming fall session. They are all set to listen to a challenge that has far-reaching consequences. A group of fishermen may just change how the federal government functions. At the heart of this debate is the Chevron law, a staple in American law.

A Look at the Chevron Law

Signed into existence in 1984, the Chevron law is a reference point for many American legal decisions. Why is it so essential? This law ensures industries operate efficiently while maintaining the balance of power within the U.S. government. So, it is clear that this is a very important law.

The Role of Chevron

Image Credit: mark reinstein / Shutterstock.

The primary purpose of the Chevron law is to grant government agencies the ability to enforce Congressional laws in a manner best fitting their respective industries. Instead of Congress getting bogged down in details, agencies like the FDA can implement broader laws. This makes them more practical.

Exploring the Details of Chevron

Editorial credit: Sheila Fitzgerald / Shutterstock.

Imagine Congress passing a law to label food origins clearly. That’s where Chevron comes in, letting an agency like the FDA fill in the blanks. It’s not about micro-managing but about practicality. The FDA could determine the font size for labels or decide how to verify the origins, all under the umbrella of the Chevron deference.

The Power of Judicial Review

When businesses disagree with an agency’s rule, they can challenge it, and Chevron often tips the scales. The Court’s compliance with agencies under Chevron means that as long as they’re within a zone of reasonableness, they’ll likely get the green light. This legal concept frequently places agencies in power, presuming their actions are reasonable until proven otherwise.

Fishermen Reeling Against Regulations

In a significant move, commercial fishermen are pushing back against the NMFS, which is enforcing payment for monitoring their businesses. They claim they’re not against oversight, but the financial burden it imposes is unsustainable. They argue that while the oversight itself is lawful, the financial demand placed on them by NMFS feels like overreach.

The Supreme Court Steps In

After a long legal battle, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the fishermen’s plea, potentially altering the government’s power dynamics. This is about more than just the industry. It is about how power is exercised and who gets to wield it. This decision by SCOTUS could be a landmark in redefining the extent of judicial and legislative powers.

Rethinking Regulation

Image Credit: Rob Crandall / Shutterstock.

Should the Supreme Court overturn Chevron, the ripple effect could be massive. It could cause a seismic shift from regulatory agencies to the judiciary or Congress for granular decision-making. This shift could mean a landscape where businesses navigate with less regulatory oversight, leading to significant economic and environmental impacts.

A Shift in Observers’ Opinions

Observers suggest that without Chevron, agency influence might wane, leaving Congress overwhelmed with details. Some question if agencies lose power, who steps in? They argue Congress isn’t equipped for such technical decisions. This power shift could inadvertently increase corporate freedom, changing the regulatory terrain substantially.

The Understated Importance of Chevron

The Chevron doctrine, less debated in the public arena than decisions like Roe v. Wade, remains crucial. There are claims that Chevron’s revision has been on the horizon since the Court’s balance shifted. Its outcome affects every American. This situation brings to light the underlying tension between the evolution of the law and established legal precedents.

Preparing for a Changed America

America stands on the edge of change, with the fate of the Chevron doctrine in the hands of SCOTUS. Whatever happens at the trail could shape our country’s future. Whether Chevron stays or goes, its impact will resonate through the fabric of American life, industry, and governance.

Calls to Dismantle the Department of Education Emerge

Editorial credit: Evgenia Parajanian / Shutterstock.

In the heat of the debate, some target the Department of Education itself. “Let’s dismantle the Dept of Education,” one teacher exclaimed. They expressed frustration over what they view as the overreach of federal agencies into the education sector. This sentiment reflects a broader frustration with federal agencies and their influence.

Critique of Chevron as ‘Bad Law’ Surfaces

Skepticism about the Chevron doctrine’s legitimacy is not uncommon. “Chevron deference has always been bad law,” argued a veteran attorney. The core of their argument is that unelected officials shouldn’t have the sway to make what amounts to laws. They suggest that this power should rest solely with those elected to legislate.

Support for Government Agency Elimination

Amidst the controversy, some voices welcome the potential rollback of agency power. “Anything that cuts down the size of government can’t be all that bad,” declared a small business owner. They believe smaller government could lead to more efficient and less bureaucratic governance.

The People Versus Bureaucrats Debate

The foundational principle of a government ‘by the people’ is being invoked by critics of the Chevron deference. “We’re supposed to have a government of the people, not bureaucrats,” a community leader passionately stated. The concern is that governments have become too detached from the electorate and their interests.

Opposition to Unelected Bureaucrats Making Major Decisions

The role of agencies in making substantial regulatory decisions is under scrutiny. “Unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t have this much power,” insisted an industry lobbyist. They referred to standards that could reshape sectors like the automotive and energy industries. They argue for legislative solutions like the REINS Act, requiring congressional approval for major regulations.

Personal Stories Highlight Bureaucratic Overreach

Personal anecdotes often illustrate frustrations with agency rule-making. One landowner shared, “I’ve been told to pay for using my own property. No map from 1920 can prove I was here first, but my family’s history isn’t enough?” This experience underscores the apparent absurdity and unfairness in some of the agency’s demands.

The Misconception of Chevron as Law

A distinguishing point being raised is the nature of Chevron as a court decision, not a law. “People forget that the Chevron Doctrine is from a court case, not Congress,” a law professor clarified. The distinction is important because it highlights the judiciary’s role in shaping the application of administrative law.

Reins Act Advocated as a Necessary Reform

The call for reforms like the REINS Act has grown louder. “We need the REINS Act to curb these agencies,” a fiscal conservative stated. By demanding that major regulations receive congressional approval, supporters of the REINS Act hope to restore legislative power. They believe it will reduce the regulatory burden they claim is stifling economic growth and burdening taxpayers.