September 13, 2024 — The American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil trade group in the United States, has joined forces with several other top energy industry organizations to protest a court order they claim threatens oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.
API, EnerGeo Alliance, the National Ocean Industries Association, and Chevron USA said the order puts “current and future U.S. energy supply” at risk in an appeal filed Wednesday evening.
January 11, 2024 — Fisheries regulation might seem to be unusual grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to shift power away from federal agencies. But that is what the court seems poised to do in the combined cases of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. vs. Department of Commerce. The cases are scheduled for oral argument in tandem on Jan. 17, 2024.
The question at the core of both cases is whether the secretary of commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service and following the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, can require commercial fishers to pay for onboard observers whom they are required to take on some fishing voyages. In both cases, the plaintiffs assert that the Commerce Department has exceeded its legal authority. That claim turns on how much deference the court should give the agency’s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Specifically, plaintiffs are challenging a nearly 40-year-old doctrine of federal administrative law, known as Chevron deference for the 1984 case in which it was set forth. This tenet provides that when a federal statute is silent or ambiguous about a particular regulatory issue, courts defer to the implementing agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law.
In other words, if the agency and federal courts disagree about the “best” interpretation of a federal law, the courts cannot force the agency to accept their version of what the statute means or allows, so long as the agency’s own interpretation is reasonable.
January 3, 2024 — Energy regulators’ power to address planet-warming emissions is in the crosshairs in federal courts in 2024.
In one of the year’s biggest cases, the Supreme Court could rein in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s ability to use 50-year-old laws to take bold action on emerging problems like climate change.
At issue in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — a high-profile legal battle that will ripple through all federal agencies — is whether the justices should overturn the Chevron doctrine, which for 40 years has given regulators at FERC and elsewhere the benefit of the doubt in lawsuits over their rules.
October 28, 2023 — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases that call into question so-called “Chevron deference,” a judicial doctrine that has enabled government agencies to greatly expand their power beyond the authority granted by Congress.
The cases are Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc., v. Department of Commerce. Both nominally involve challenges to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service that required commercial fishermen to pay $710 per day for an at-sea monitoring program. The fishermen argued that a 1976 law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, did not authorize the service to create an industry-funded monitoring program.
But the issue the court has agreed to decide goes far beyond the fishing industry. The justices have chosen these cases to review whether it is now time to toss “Chevron deference” into the dustbin of history.
The Chevron doctrine dates to the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. In that case, the justices created a legal test to determine when a court should defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation or decision. When an agency’s action was not unreasonable, and Congress had left the issue ambiguous, the justices said, a court should simply defer to the agency’s judgment.
October 16, 2023 — The U.S. Supreme Court will listen to arguments on two challenges to NOAA Fisheries’ regulatory authority in January 2024, the court announced this week.
The court announced 13 October that it would take up the case of Relentless, Inc. v. the U.S. Department of Commerce, a lawsuit filed by Atlantic herring fishermen in 2020 challenging the government’s authority to require fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors on their vessels. The fishermen claim the monitors can cost as much as USD 700 (EUR 640) per day.
July 26, 2023 — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s chamber is urging the Supreme Court to reconsider the level of deference courts give federal agencies, saying that allowing them too much leeway conflicts with the separation of powers and upends congressional authority over lawmaking.
The House filed its brief in a case that stems from a dispute between herring fishers and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which wants to charge vessels as much as $700 a day to monitor what they are catching.
Fishing industry advocates say that while the law passed by Congress allows for the monitors, the agency is making up its own rules by insisting the boats pay the charges.
The high court agreed to hear the dispute in May, but has not scheduled oral arguments for the legal battle during its 2023 term, which begins in October.
The justices will decide whether to overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1984 precedent that gave federal agencies deference when interpreting how to implement legislation passed by Congress when lawmakers were silent with respect to certain aspects of enforcement.
June 8, 2023 — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging its landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The high court’s ruling could have important implications on federal officials’ discretion to regulate in many facets of American life.
When Congress delegates regulatory functions to administrative agencies, the delegating statute governs the agency’s ability to act. That is, the statute itself sets the agency’s boundaries and an agency may not regulate or take actions outside the scope of its delegated authority. But what happens when an agency takes actions that exceed the scope of its delegated authority? Or what happens when it is unclear from the statute whether an agency even has authority? For more than 200 years, the federal judiciary has served as a critical “check” on the powers and actions of the executive and legislative branches of government.
“Chevron deference” has become one of the most well-known precedents in administrative law. Arising from the Supreme Court’s landmark 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., it is based on the principle that an agency, with its expertise, is better positioned than a judge to know a statute’s meaning and, thus, it requires judges to defer to “reasonable” interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
May 3, 2o23 — Few Supreme Court doctrines have been stretched more by regulators and lower-court judges than Chevron deference, which says judges should defer to regulators’ interpretations when laws are supposedly ambiguous. The High Court agreed Monday to give Chevron a much-needed legal review.
The Court agreed to hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which concerns an obscure regulation under a 1976 fishing law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act lets the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) require fishing vessels to carry federal observers on board to enforce the agency’s fishing regulations.
In three narrow circumstances, the law also permits the agency to require vessels to pay the salaries of government monitors. In February 2020 the agency went further and required some vessels to foot the bill for government monitors when those narrow circumstances don’t apply. This would cost fishermen about 20% of their annual revenue.
November 15, 2022 — New Jersey fishing firms want the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court order that forces them to pay the salaries of federally mandated onboard monitors, arguing it’s the perfect opportunity to overturn a cornerstone precedent that gives federal agencies wide latitude to interpret laws.
The fishing companies say the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) salary rule is too onerous, requiring them to not only give up valuable space on their small boats for the observers but also pay them over $700 a day. The companies have said those fees can reduce returns by 20%.
November 27, 2018 — A trade group representing commercial fishermen on the West Coast of the United States has filed a lawsuit in a California court claiming petroleum companies have significantly harmed the Dungeness crab fishery in that state and neighboring Oregon.
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association filed the suit in a San Francisco, California court last week against 30 fossil fuel makers. They claim actions by the defendants – which include Chevron, ExxonMobil, Dutch Shell, Citgo, ConocoPhillips and Marathon Oil – have led to algae blooms in the Pacific Ocean. Those blooms lead to a buildup of domoic acid, a harmful neurotoxin, in the crabs.
The lawsuit states fuel companies have known for a half-century that their products have led to climate change, with the waters for the crab fishery growing warmer. As a result, the Dungeness crab fishery has suffered through repeated closures since 2015.
“We are seeking to implement measures, at the fossil fuel industry’s expense, that will help crabbers adapt to a world in which domoic acid flare-ups will be increasingly common, and also help those crabbers who suffer financial losses as a result,” said Noah Oppenheim, the association’s executive director, in a news release.
Just days before the lawsuit, California Department of Fish and Wildlife officials announced that the Dungeness crab fishery, originally scheduled to open on 15 November, would be suspended indefinitely along the Sonoma County coast, located roughly 70 miles north of San Francisco.
Crab fishing south of the county began on schedule. Crab fishing north of Sonoma County is not scheduled to start until next month. However, in the same statement, state officials did not rule out a delay for that portion of the fishery.