By
The Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority overruled Roe v. Wade last term and it isn't done setting its sights on precedents abhorred by conservatives.
The latest example came when the justices on Monday agreed to hear an appeal that could achieve another conservative goal: overturning a precedent that empowers administrative agencies. While the issue’s importance may seem less obvious at first glance than something like abortion, it’s still a significant one that could affect many aspects of our lives.
If you start hearing more about “Chevron deference,” understand that it comes from the name of that imperiled 1984 precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Under that decision, courts defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. That can make it more difficult for businesses challenging environmental regulations, for example, to prevail in court.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Blog newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump investigations and more.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who’s under scrutiny for not disclosing financial ties to a GOP billionaire, complained in a 2015 opinion that Chevron deference “precludes judges from exercising” their “independent judgment.”
And though abortion might seem like it wouldn’t factor into the matter, one of the groups urging the justices to overturn Chevron deference is an alliance of Christian-owned businesses. The businesses argued in a Supreme Court amicus brief that federal agencies are “weaponizing federal healthcare laws to violate the right to life.” They’re represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is trying to pull the abortion pill mifepristone from the market.
The case the justices agreed to hear, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, was brought by fishing companies challenging a National Marine Fisheries Service rule requiring the fishing industry to pay for compliance monitors. It takes four votes to grant review of a case, and the vote tally isn’t public. The case will likely be argued next term, which begins in October, with a decision expected by June 2024.
Notably, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is recused, presumably due to her involvement in the case when it made its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where Jackson was a judge before her high court appointment.
And though it’s notable that her colleagues took on such an important issue without a full bench, Jackson’s absence underscores that her vote likely wouldn’t alter the outcome anyway on this 6-3 GOP court.