Guests Christopher Walker, a professor at Michigan Law School, and Timothy Sandefur from the Goldwater Institute, discuss the recent Supreme Court oral arguments on whether the landmark Chevron case should be overturned. They explore the future of Chevron and the administrative state, highlighting topics such as delegation, expertise, accountability, judicial deference, the importance of starry decisis, implications on Congress and citizens, and the debate surrounding the potential overturning of Chevron.
Chevron strikes the right balance between empowering agencies and preventing overreach, preserving the role of political branches.
Chevron allows unaccountable bureaucrats to exercise executive, judicial, and legislative powers, going against the constitutional order.
The rise of textualism has made conservative judges more confident in finding statutes unambiguous, reducing the need for deference to Chevron.
Deep dives
Chevron Should Be Upheld
Chevron strikes the right balance between empowering agencies to fulfill their statutory duties and preventing overreach. It encourages agencies to implement statutes while maintaining the role of the political branches in making major value judgments. Without Chevron, district judges would make decisions, which is not ideal for a federal government. Additionally, Congress has the power to get rid of Chevron if they so choose.
Chevron Should Be Overturned
Chevron is not found in the Constitution or the writings of the framers and grants agencies powers that do not exist in these sources. It allows unaccountable bureaucrats to exercise executive, judicial, and legislative powers, which goes against the constitutional order. Instead, the focus should be on interpreting the Constitution as the basis for governing and preserving the blessings of liberty.
Evolution of Conservative Thinking
Conservative thinking on Chevron has evolved over time. The rise of textualism has made conservative textualist judges more confident in finding statutes unambiguous, reducing the need for deference. Additionally, skepticism towards agency expertise and concerns about agencies making major policy changes have influenced the conservative viewpoint. Respect for stare decisis and the pragmatic benefits of Chevron, such as providing uniformity and reducing politics in judging, have also been considerations.
Arguments for Upholding Chevron
Arguments for upholding Chevron include maintaining stare decisis, ensuring uniformity in the law, promoting national uniformity and reducing political considerations in judging. Chevron provides a helpful tool for courts to defer to agencies when interpreting statutes and allows agencies to use their expertise in implementing statutory mandates.
Arguments for Overturning Chevron
Arguments for overturning Chevron center around concerns about judicial policymaking and allowing unaccountable bureaucrats to exercise excessive power. Critics argue that Chevron goes beyond what the Constitution and the framers envisioned, and that it is important to prioritize individual rights, constitutional principles, and proper checks and balances.
On January 17, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce—two cases that ask whether the Court should overturn the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Councilcase. In this episode, guests Christopher Walker of Michigan Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institue join to recap the arguments in both cases and to explore the future of Chevron and the administrative state. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.