Supreme Court won't strip federal agencies of power to interpret regulations, a top priority of conservatives




  • In Business
  • 2019-06-26 14:49:31Z
  • By USA TODAY
 

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court denied the conservative legal movement something it has long sought Wednesday, refusing to strip federal agencies of the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.

The decision was unanimous because while upholding agencies' authority, the justices defined new parameters. Deference "is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not," Associate Justice Elena Kagan said in her opinion.

"Deference can apply only when a regulation is genuinely ambiguous," Kagan said, and "the agency's construction of its rule must still be reasonable." But when those and other conditions are met, she said, courts must accept agency interpret

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch went further in a 42-page concurrence, labeling the decision "more of a stay of execution than a pardon."

"The doctrine emerges maimed and enfeebled - in truth, zombified," he said.

More: Supreme Court rules for sex offender in child pornography case testing power of judges, juries

And Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the court's refusal to overrule its precedent in this case does not signal the same result for another target of conservatives: so-called "Chevron deference," in which courts are supposed to bend to agency interpretations of laws enacted by Congress.

The ruling is important because agencies run by unelected bureaucrats make decisions all the time about regulations on the environment, the workplace, food and drugs, and other matters affecting millions of Americans.

Challengers wanted that power left to federal trial judges when regulations get challenged in court. Under Supreme court precedents from 1945 and 1997, courts are encouraged to defer to administrative agencies with expertise the judges lack.

The specific case before the justices challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs' refusal to pay retroactive disability benefits to a Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam War with post-traumatic stress disorder. But it rose to the high court's attention only because it was a stalking horse for a much bigger issue.

The unanimous 1997 decision in Auer v. Robbins upholding agencies' clout was written by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who over the next two decades grew to despise it. He once told his friend and colleague, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, that Auer was "one of the worst opinions in the history of this country."

"Nino," Thomas has said in recounting the story, "you wrote it."

Defending agency deference during oral argument in March, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer cited "hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of interpretive regulations" that bureaucrats are best able to define.

By way of example, Breyer noted a Food and Drug Administration regulation concerns "a single new active moiety, which consists of a previously approved moiety, joined by a non-ester covalent bond to a lysine group."

"Do you know how much I know about that?" Breyer quipped.

More: Supreme Court's Top Cases of 2019

The case was closely watched by both conservatives and liberals because eliminating agency deference over regulations is considered a stepping stone to a more controversial change: stripping agencies of the power to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court does not overrule itself often - about once a year and considerably less than in the past. But last year, it struck down both a 1977 decision that allowed public employee unions to collect fees from non-members and a 1992 ruling that allowed retailers to sell goods tax-free beyond state borders.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court won't strip federal agencies of power to interpret regulations, a top priority of conservatives

COMMENTS

More Related News

Census Bureau seeks state data, including citizenship info
Census Bureau seeks state data, including citizenship info

The U.S. Census Bureau is asking states for drivers' license records that typically include citizenship data and has made a new request for information on recipients of government assistance, alarming some civil rights advocates. The two approaches, documented by The Associated Press, come amid

Spain jails Catalan leaders up to 13 years for independence bid
Spain jails Catalan leaders up to 13 years for independence bid

Spain's Supreme Court on Monday sentenced nine Catalan leaders to prison terms of between nine and 13 years for sedition for their role in a failed 2017 independence bid. The long-awaited verdicts were less than those demanded by the prosecution which had sought up to 25 years behind bars for former Catalan Vice President Oriol Junqueras on grounds of rebellion. Spain has been bracing for weeks for the court's ruling, with tension mounting steadily and police sending reinforcements to Catalonia where separatists have pledged a mass response of civil disobedience.

Spanish court convicts Catalan leaders for secession attempt
Spanish court convicts Catalan leaders for secession attempt
  • US
  • 2019-10-14 08:30:55Z

Spain's Supreme Court on Monday convicted 12 former Catalan politicians and activists for their roles in a secession bid in 2017, a ruling likely to inflame independence supporters in the wealthy northeastern region. The court sentenced ex-Catalan regional Vice President Oriol Junqueras to 13 years for sedition and misuse of public funds following one of Spain's most important trials since democracy was restored after the death of dictator Gen. Francisco Franco in 1975. Eight received lengthy prison terms in Catalonia's attempt to break away from Spain following an illegal independence referendum, while three received lesser sentences.

India tightens security clampdown ahead of divisive temple ruling
India tightens security clampdown ahead of divisive temple ruling

Authorities have tightened security restrictions in the northern Indian flashpoint city of Ayodhya ahead of a crucial Supreme Court ruling over the disputed site fiercely contested between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus and Muslims have for decades been bitterly divided over the 16th-century Babri mosque in Ayodhya, a city in Uttar Pradash state. The Supreme Court is expected to conclude on October 17 hearings into appeals against a key 2010 court ruling that both groups should split the site, with Hindus granted the lion's share.

Anxiety over Supreme Court arguments pervades Coming Out Day
Anxiety over Supreme Court arguments pervades Coming Out Day

National Coming Out Day festivities were tempered this year by anxiety that some LGBT folk may have to go back into the closet so they can make a living, depending on what the Supreme Court decides about workplace discrimination law. "I want all members of our community to feel supported by the government, and often for a lot of us and a lot of friends of mine, it's the first time that they feel represented," said Jessica Goldberg, a bisexual senior at the University of Colorado Denver. This year that includes Philadelphia's OutFest on Sunday, billed as the largest National Coming Out Day event, many LGBT people said.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Business

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.