In Washington, D.C., who regulates the regulators? | Civics Project
Q. What is Chevron Deference and why is it such a big deal?
A. While it seems like the federal laws passed are highly specific and increasingly larger in size and scope, they often do not cover every possibility. When Congress passes a new law, they will often delegate authority to a federal agency or even create a new federal agency which will then establish regulations under that law governing a wide range of conduct and commerce.
If you look in the federal register you can seem volumes and volumes of regulations from various federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), just to name a few. Many of these agencies were established by Congress to address wide held concerns about safety. For example, the FDA can be traced back to 1906 and the “Pure Food and Drugs Act” which was passed in response to the concerns about slaughterhouses and unhygienic conditions in food preparation.
Want more Sunshine State politics?: Sign up for our free weekly newsletter
As the number of agencies and rules has grown, there has been pushback about the size and the scope of the administrative state and specific questions about the authority of these agencies to establish new regulations without specific direction from Congress through legislation. In some cases, Congress has given a broad grant of authority and there are questions as to when the limit of that authority has been reached.
In the landmark case of Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), the United States Supreme Court created a framework for interpreting those disputes. Where a statute is unclear or ambiguous, Chevron generally requires a court to accept the agency’s interpretation of the underlying law as long as the interpretation is reasonable. In essence, the courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statute rather than substituting a judicial one. Part of the rationale is that an agency understands its area of expertise better than a court would.
As a practical matter this process can be complex and highly contested. When is a statute ambiguous? What is a reasonable interpretation? In more recent years, the federal courts have adopted an increasingly strict interpretation of what is ambiguous and what is reasonable, which has ultimately reduced the amount of judicial deference shown to federal agencies.
More Civics Project: Super-PAC supporting DeSantis' posted his debate strategy online. Huh? | Civics Project
One area in which the Supreme Court has restricted Chevron is the “Major Questions Doctrine.” The Court has held that where an agency is interpreting a statute with significant economic or political issues, Chevron does not apply. However, this raises a difficult question as to what is or is not major enough to remove the otherwise existing deference to a federal agency.
Some have argued that the Chevron doctrine itself was in error, and that it should be reversed. Supporters of the Chevron doctrine argue that accepted regulations for things such as environmental protection, and workplace and food safety, could be at risk if the doctrine is removed. The issue may be settled soon as the Supreme Court appears ready to review the Chevron Doctrine again in the next year.
Kevin Wagner is a noted constitutional scholar and political science professor at Florida Atlantic University. The answers provided do not necessarily represent the views of the university. If you have a question about how American government and politics work, email him at kwagne15@fau.edu or reach him on Twitter @kevinwagnerphd.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Chevron Deference: Who regulates US regulators? Congress or courts?
