The days of Chevron might be over!

Pretty much everyone with a legal opinion believes the court will overturn the "Chevron doctrine" !

Sounds like a 6-3 decision overturning the longstanding "Chevron doctrine" is just a matter of time. From all accounts the six conservatives on the court were critical of the idea that Chevron is a necessary doctrine to follow.

The case that brought this to the forefront was a ruling from a federal agency regarding the National Marine Fisheries Service. The ruling requires the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats. Both the U.S. Court of Appeals DC and the U.S. Court of Appeals 1st Circuit upheld the rule, saying the interpretation by the agency was reasonable. The fisherman believed that the ruling could in fact put them out of business.

Now I haven't read the "law" in question that guided the agency, but critics suggested that the regulation put in place was pretty much pulled out of thin air and had little to do with the intent of the law. Of course our courts are so used to rubberstamping all of these regulation under Chevron, that it almost is of no use for those harmed by regulation to take it to court. Without being able to just suggest that an agency can make rules not authorized by congress because of precedent, these cases will likely come fast and furious. This, of course, was one of the argument made by the Government. You don't want a whole bunch of lawsuits against the Federal government, do you? Well technically that shouldn't matter one bit to whether or not Chevron is a valid legal doctrine that should continue.

The argument made by some of the liberal Justices is that apparently Judges are too stupid to overrule an "expert" in an agency. Of course, this goes right back to the way judges think differently. What should be guiding the legal decisions of judges in general is the law. That is their area of expertise and what they should focus on. Determining whether or not an existing law supports an agency decision should give no consideration as to whether or not the agency experts are doing something that the judges like or dislike. The decision should be applied solely on whether the law provides the guidance that allows the agency to put something in place.

In reality the dispute is not about what the agency in question wants to do. The entire dispute is whether the agency is following the law as written. You can have 10 advanced degrees in whatever field your agency specializes in, and you will not understand a law better than a judge should be able to. If a judge wants to take a pass on what a law means because they think an agency expert is better qualified to understand the law, then maybe this judge needs to find a new career.

Either way, it sounds like the Chevron Doctrine's days are numbered. Like many Americans, I scream good riddance!