Federal agencies expanding their power beyond congressional intent? Unelected bureaucrats making policy decisions? Regulatory whiplash?! According to the litigants urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Chevron doctrine in the Loper Bright case, those were the harms Americans would continue to face if Chevron deference were allowed to continue.
But striking down the pivotal legal principle that had been in place for 40 years would bring its own risks, defenders of Chevron argued. Scientific and technical decisions would need to be made by judges with no specialized expertise. Regulatory uncertainty would soar, as thousands of existing rules face new challenges. And the Supreme Court itself could be forced to become, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put it, "uber-legislators."
In part two of our episode on Loper Bright, the high court ostensibly considers the plight of the herring fishermen, but actually looks to decide whether to abandon the Chevron doctrine once and for all.Stylebook flag
Featured Guests:
-
Ryan Mulvey, counsel with the Cause of Action Institute
-
Jeff Kaelin, director of sustainability and government relations at Lund’s Fisheries
-
Wayne Reichle, President of Lund's Fisheries
-
Gillian Metzger, Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of constitutional law at Columbia University
-
Lydia Wheeler, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law
-
Greg Stohr, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News
-
Kimberly Robinson, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law
***
Hosted and produced by Matthew S. Schwartz
Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block
Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte
Special thanks to Tom Taylor, David Schultz, Paul Detrick, Isabel Gottlieb, and Matt's baby for their vocal performances.
