Case brought to Supreme Court by herring fishermen may gut federal rulemaking power

Source: 1/16/24

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday in a case involving the deference that courts should give to federal agencies’ interpretations of the laws that they administer. From health care to finance to environmental pollutants, administrative agencies use highly trained experts to interpret and carry out federal laws. Although the case may sound technical, it is one of the most closely watched cases of the court’s current term, which is filled with blockbuster cases involving abortion, gun rights, and whether a former president is eligible to appear on the ballot. The stakes in the case are high: The challengers argue that the current deferential standard is unconstitutional, while the Biden administration contends that overturning the existing doctrine would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system.” 

The doctrine at the center of the case is known as the Chevron doctrine. It is named after the Supreme Court’s 1984 opinion in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, upholding a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Justice John Paul Stevens set out a two-part test for courts to review an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. The court must first determine whether Congress has directly addressed the question at the center of the case. If it has not, the court must uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it is reasonable.

Read the full article

 Here is a link to the NPR radio piece:

Supreme Court to hear arguments in a case that could weaken federal rulemaking : NPR


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Could this case affect affect so laws at the federal level. Seems like there are some implications similar to Gundy.

Their decision will not end up helping people on the registry. They will move the power from regulatory entities & the DOJ to the federal judiciary. The result will be deregulation for corporations, employers, & any other business interest so they can maximize profit consequences be damned. Registrants will simply have a federal judge F**king us instead of the DOJ.

Sadly, I would agree that, if thrown back to Congress, SORNA will be passed with little if any debate. Politicians love S.O. Registries even more than their hysterically sexphobic, torch-n-pitchfork constituents. 😩

Did anyone else get to listen to the live herring?? 🐟🐟🐟
(Sea what I did there?? 🤓)

But, in all seriousness, I thought the live arguments were pretty interesting. Scary sharp lawyers on both sides! 😳

Here’s a little additional light reading on the topic from a source that is quoted and referred to here a little bit:

SCOTUS Ponders the Ambiguity of ‘Ambiguous’ and Other Chevron Doctrine Puzzles (Reason, 18 Jan 2024)

Justice Jackson intimates she’s not necessarily willing to overturn the Chevron doctrine.

Last edited 5 months ago by TS

Anyone awaiting the Chevron Deference ruling might be frustrated. I think the title sums it up:

The Supreme Court Has Planned for a June So Awful It Will Be Impossible to Keep Up