(Bloomberg) -- The US Supreme Court accepted a major new clash that could curb federal regulatory authority, agreeing to consider abolishing a legal doctrine that has given agencies wide latitude to define their own powers.
AAPL
STZ
TSLA
AMZN
The justices said they will take up an appeal by four New Jersey fishing companies asking the court to overturn the watershed 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling. That decision said courts should defer to administrative agencies when they offer a reasonable interpretation of an unclear statute.
The move sets up the court's next term, which starts in October, as a potential blockbuster for the power of regulatory agencies. The justices are already set to consider whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding system is constitutional.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't take part in the court's decision to accept the latest case. As is customary, she didn't provide any explanation.
Democratic administrations have relied heavily on the so-called Chevron doctrine, using it to justify mandates on energy, the environment and the workplace. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court has chipped away at Chevron in recent years but until now had eschewed any direct challenge.
The case involves a federal requirement that some vessels fishing for herring off the Atlantic coast hire monitors for conservation and management purposes. The challengers say Congress didn't authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to require fishing companies to pay for the observers.
"In a country that values limited government and the separation of powers, such an extraordinary power should require the clearest of congressional grants," the fishing companies argued. They say they could have to devote as much as 20% of their revenues toward paying monitors under the rule.
In upholding the monitor requirement on a 2-1 vote, a federal appeals court in Washington relied on the Chevron doctrine. The panel said the rule was based on a reasonable interpretation of the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs the management of marine fisheries in federal waters.
The Biden administration defended the Chevron doctrine, saying it "promotes political accountability, national uniformity, and predictability, and it respects the expertise agencies can bring to bear in administering complex statutory schemes."
In urging the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, the administration said the fishery dispute has little practical importance, in part because the monitoring program is on hold for unrelated reasons. The government also says the four suing companies haven't shown they ever had to pay for a monitor.
The fishing companies' appeal drew an unusual level of support, as outsiders filed 14 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the justices to take up the case.
The case is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 22-451.
(Updates with schedule in third paragraph, Jackson's recusal in fourth.)
Most Read from Bloomberg
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.