The Daily The Fishermen Who Could End Federal Regulation as We Know It
23 snips
Jan 19, 2024 
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, analyzes a pivotal legal case where fishing crews challenge a federal mandate, potentially reshaping regulation across industries. He delves into the implications of the Chevron Doctrine, highlighting the tension between regulatory authority and judicial rulings. Liptak explores how the conservative movement's push against regulation may inadvertently empower unelected judges. The discussion reveals deep-rooted challenges in legislative accountability amidst a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Fishermen vs. Fees
- Herring fishermen in Cape May, New Jersey, object to a 2020 government fee for mandatory federal observers on their boats.
- They believe the fee is burdensome and not authorized by the original 1976 law.
Chevron Deference Doctrine
- This seemingly minor dispute raises a fundamental question about who interprets federal law: the implementing agency or judges.
- The case revolves around the 1984 Chevron Deference doctrine, which favors agency interpretation in ambiguous statutes.
Conservative Backing
- Business groups oppose Chevron Deference, preferring judicial interpretation of laws.
- The fishermen are backed by groups tied to Charles Koch, aiming to limit government regulation.