The United States Supreme Court with a conservative majority on Friday reduced the freedom of action of federal agencies, in the crosshairs of ultraliberal circles crusading against “bureaucracy”, by annulling a 1984 case law.
What does this doctrine say?
This case law, known as the “Chevron doctrine”, gave the last word to government agencies in their field of competence, for example in matters of the environment, social protection or consumers.
It required federal courts to follow those agencies’ “reasonable” interpretation of ambiguity or silence in the law.
Why was she criticized?
Critics of this jurisprudence argued that the interpretation of laws falls to the judicial branch and not to federal agencies, which depend on the executive branch.
“Courts must exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority and cannot defer to that agency’s interpretation of the law simply because it is ambiguous,” wrote the President of the Court, John Roberts, on behalf of the majority of six conservatives against the progressives. “Chevron is canceled,” he continued.
Progressives disagree
Chevron jurisprudence “has become a pillar of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds, to name a few on clean air and water, food and drug safety, and honesty of financial markets,” objects progressive Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent.
“Congress knows that it does not write, in fact cannot, write perfectly comprehensive laws,” she emphasizes, criticizing the majority for having during this session “decided to limit the powers of agencies, despite indications from Congress to the contrary.”
She was referring in particular to a decision by the Court on Thursday, by the same majority of six conservatives against the three progressives, denying the American financial markets watchdog, the SEC, the power to sanction individuals or companies via its own administrative judges rather than going through ordinary civil justice.
Towards a shock to the legal system?
“A reversal of the Chevron case law would be an unjustified shock to the legal system,” argued Elizabeth Prelogar, the legal adviser to the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden, during the debates in January, stressing the risks of instability that it would cause.
In this hypothesis, she predicted a legal cacophony, with “different rules in different places in the country”.
But most conservative judges appeared resistant to these arguments. One of them, Brett Kavanaugh, argued that this instability was inherent to democratic institutions. “The Chevron jurisprudence itself causes shocks to the system when a new administration arrives,” he retorted, in reference to the four-year presidential term, renewable once.
These upheavals concern “telecommunications law, financial markets, competition law and the environment,” said Brett Kavanaugh.
Paradoxically, at the time this decision represented a success for the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, who accused progressive judges of burying businesses under exorbitant regulations.
