Opinion: US Supreme Court curbs administrative state in Chevron ruling

provided by Missouri Farm Bureau

Dan Engemann

In elementary school, we all learned about the three equal, but separate, branches of government: the legislative branch to create our laws; the judicial branch to interpret the laws; and the executive branch to implement the laws as written.

However, much of that governmental lesson was turned on its head 40 years ago, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chevron ruling. That decision instructed the courts to defer to federal agencies’ arguments about the scope of their own authority, multiplying the power of federal agencies and growing the regulatory burden on farmers and ranchers.

You don’t have to look very far for real-world examples of the administrative state run amok. For farmers and ranchers, exhibit A is the long-fought-against Waters of the U.S. rule by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Through WOTUS, federal agencies have tried to lay claim to just about any body of water they wanted, far from any navigable stream, and far from what Congress intended. Wetland determinations conducted by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, where lands are regulated in addition to the Clean Water Act, placed the burden upon farmers and ranchers to prove they’re not farming a “wetland,” including acreage that often doesn’t even hold water. On par, EPA’s tailpipe vehicle emissions standard is now a de facto electric vehicle mandate for just about everything that we drive. Simply put, the agencies have taken things way too far.

In response, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 decision on June 28, striking down Chevron deference. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said Chevron “allows agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so” and called it “fundamentally misguided.” This comes after the Supreme Court’s hearing of oral arguments in two cases that sought to overturn Chevron – Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The plaintiffs were fishing companies who challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service rule, which required them to pay for federal observers on their boats. The central issue in these cases is that while federal law said the agency can require observers on fishing boats, it doesn’t require the fishing companies to pay their salaries.

American Farm Bureau Federation and other agriculture groups filed an amicus brief in Loper Bright, stating: “a deference rule, as experience shows, makes it far too easy for agencies and courts to throw up their hands when faced with difficult statutory language and rely on deference rather than careful textual analysis.”

Chevron deference has led to a staggering number of harmful regulations to agriculture and our entire economy that Congress did not authorize, and up until now, the courts couldn’t check. In fact, Chevron has been cited in the past by federal courts in excess of 18,000 times. Following this decision, the courts will have to determine what the laws passed by Congress actually say, and not defer to federal agency interpretation. This ruling leaves farm, ranch and like-minded organizations, as well as the legislative branch, with one of the biggest opportunities in a generation. It is incumbent to scrutinize any federal regulation justified by Chevron deference that impacts our livelihood.

Let our important work begin.

Dan Engemann is the Missouri Farm Bureau’s director of regulatory affairs. He can be reached at
publicaffairs@mofb.com.