‘Imperative’ That SCOTUS Ends Chevron, Not Try to ‘Mend It’: PLF Amicus Brief

Federal courts have the “constitutional power to say what the law is,” and Chevron deference “nullifies that power and should therefore be overruled,” said the nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) in an amicus brief Monday (docket 22-451) at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the petitioners in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The petitioners are vessel owners challenging the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service to require them to pay the salaries of the federal observers they must carry onboard. In a case with clear ramifications for the future of Chevron deference for federal agencies, the petitioners are asking SCOTUS to reverse a D.C. Circuit decision in the government’s favor that critics of the ruling are calling clear agency overreach. SCOTUS “disserves the Constitution” each day it allows Chevron deference to exist, said PLF’s brief, listing 27 reasons why SCOTUS should end the doctrine. “It should be plain by now” that the Supreme Court should end Chevron “and not attempt to mend it,” said the brief. The petitioners’ question leaves open the option for SCOTUS to mend Chevron, but there’s nothing in it “that can be mended in a manner that would bring the doctrine in compliance with the Constitution,” it said. Chevron’s presumption that Congress “relinquished a measure of its legislative power to agencies is simply unsupportable,” said the brief. Chevron “fatigues federal courts and Congress into compliance with agency diktat,” it said. It dissolves the legislative and executive powers “into one concoction, and it obstructs the administration of justice by disarming the judicial power” of the U.S., it said. Chevron by another name “will remain just as violative of the Constitution’s entwined checks and balances,” it said. It’s imperative that this SCOTUS “repudiate” the doctrine for good, it said.