Loper Bright Enterprises and other petitioners sued the Secretary of Commerce and the Department of Commerce in federal court, challenging a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The D.C. Circuit and First Circuit both upheld the rule, applying the Chevron deference framework.
Factual Overview:
The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) established eight regional fishery management councils that develop fishery management plans, which NMFS approves and promulgates as final regulations. The MSA allows these plans to require that observers be carried on board domestic vessels to collect data for fishery conservation and management.
In 2020, NMFS promulgated a rule approving an amendment to the New England Fishery Management Council’s plan for the Atlantic herring fishery. The amendment created an industry-funded monitoring program requiring Atlantic herring fishermen to pay for third-party observers if NMFS declines to provide a government-funded observer.
Petitioners, who are fishermen and fishing companies operating in the Atlantic herring fishery, challenged the rule as unauthorized by the MSA. The D.C. Circuit and First Circuit both upheld the rule, deferring to NMFS’s interpretation of the MSA under Chevron.
Legal Analysis:
Overruling Chevron Deference: The Supreme Court overruled the Chevron deference framework, holding that it is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires courts to exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. Courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation simply because a statute is ambiguous.
The Court found that Chevron deference violates the APA’s command that courts, not agencies, must decide all relevant questions of law and interpret statutory provisions. It also noted that Chevron’s presumption that ambiguities are implicit delegations to agencies does not reflect reality and that agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities.
Stare Decisis Considerations: The Court held that stare decisis does not require persistence in the Chevron framework. It found that Chevron has proved fundamentally misguided, unworkable, and has not fostered meaningful reliance interests. However, the Court clarified that overruling Chevron does not call into question prior cases that relied on the framework, as their holdings are still subject to statutory stare decisis.
Dissenting Opinion (Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson): Justice Kagan argued that Chevron deference is correct because Congress would usually prefer the agency it has charged with administering a statute to resolve ambiguities and fill gaps. Agencies have relevant expertise, experience, and political accountability that courts lack.
The dissent also contended that the APA is compatible with Chevron deference and that the pre-APA judicial review practices allowed for deference. Additionally, the dissent argued that overruling Chevron subverts stare decisis principles, as it is entrenched precedent and its overruling will cause significant disruption.
The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the D.C. Circuit and First Circuit and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion overruling Chevron deference.
Schrag on Law 