Supreme Court decision weakens regulatory power of federal agencies

June 28 (UPI) -- In a 6-3 ruling Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court weakened the power of federal administrative agencies to enforce regulations across a wide range of issues.

Conservative justices overturned a 40-year precedent that gave federal agencies more regulatory authority.

The court's ruling cited the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act as justification for weakening federal agency regulatory power.

The Supreme Court held that "The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous."

In the 1984 Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council case, the Supreme Court said courts should defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.

That gave agencies stronger power to regulate the environment, food safety and a variety of other activities regulated under federal law.

On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion: "Chevron's presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.

"The Framers, as noted, anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment."

He added: "Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires."

The chief justice added, "Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it.

"But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous."

Justice Elena Kagan was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent. Sotomayor said that for 40 years Chevron served as a cornerstone of administrative law.

"That rule has formed the backdrop against which Congress, courts and agencies, as well as regulated parties and the public-all have operated for decades," Sotomayor wrote.

"It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds-to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest."

She said the rule from Chevron was rooted in a presumption of legislative intent.

She concluded, "All that backs today's decision is the majority's belief that Chevron was wrong-that it gave agencies too much power and courts not enough. But shifting views about the worth of regulatory actors and their work do not justify overhauling a cornerstone of administrative law."