#Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Todd Beeton at The Big Picture:

We’re more than halfway through June, and the Supreme Court has hardly made a dent in the release of major opinions from this blockbuster term.

Each year, the Supreme Court’s term begins on the first Monday in October and ends with a recess starting at the end of June or beginning of July. With this self-imposed deadline fast approaching, the Court has just 2 weeks left to release decisions in the remaining 23 cases out of the 61 total cases they heard this term.

We should expect a firehose of decisions coming this week and next, with the most newsworthy cases of the term among them. And perhaps that’s by design from a court with a distinct PR problem.

[...]

January 6th

By far the most eagerly anticipated Supreme Court decision of the term is the one the Justices heard last: Trump v U.S., which is described by ScotusBlog as:

Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

This case relates to Donald Trump’s appeal of a February 6 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which thoroughly rejected Donald Trump’s claims to immunity in the four-count criminal indictment brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith in the January 6 case.

[...]

Abortion

In its unanimous decision last week to reject the challenge by a group of doctors to the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone, a safe and effective drug used in most medical abortions in the U.S., the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case but rather threw out the challenge based on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing (finding that the plaintiffs in the case were unable to demonstrate any harm brought to them by the FDA’s Mifepristone approval.) 

Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion in FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine was widely seen as leaving the door open to overturning the FDA’s approval of the drug if the right case—i.e., the right group of plaintiffs—were brought in front of this virulently anti-choice SCOTUS majority.

But the case was not the only abortion case the Court heard this term, with Moyle v. U.S. still yet to be decided.

At issue there is whether Idaho’s near total abortion ban can override the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal statute on the books since 1986 designed to “ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.” 

[...]

Guns

Last week, in a remarkably radical decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines to overturn a Trump era ban on bump stocks, devices that gun safety advocates argue convert semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. 

[...]

There is, however, one Second Amendment case still to be decided this term: U.S. v. Rahimi, which SCOTUSblog describes as a dispute over

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

[...]

The Administrative State

As we saw with the bump stock case, this Supreme Court is fond of imposing its own will over the expertise of federal agencies, what Trump and the right derisively refer to as the “deep state” or the “administrative state.” Now the Court may be poised to hugely undercut the power of all federal agencies to interpret congressional statutes when it finally rules on Relentless v. Department of Commerce in the coming weeks.  In a 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Court established the Chevron Doctrine, which basically said that “courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.”

[...] And in Securities And Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, it could very well “strip the SEC of a major tool in fighting securities fraud.”

With 23 cases left to have opinions released in the Supreme Court later this month and possibly early next month, Todd Beeton writes in The Big Picture a summary of the key cases left to be decided.

Key cases left:

Trump v. United States: Presidential immunity

Moyle v. United States: EMTALA and abortion.

United States v. Rahimi: Guns and domestic abuse.

Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce: Chevron Doctrine and regulatory power.

SEC v. Jarkesy: regulatory power.

[nationallawreview]

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision Upending Deference to Federal Agencies

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States upended the 40-year-old doctrine whereby federal courts gave deference to administrative agencies’ reasonable interpretations of federal statutes. The ruling stands to have significant implications for federal agencies’ rulemaking and enforcement of federal labor and employment laws. Quick Hits The Supreme Court held that courts must…

[meret118]

Reproductive health and gender equality advocates are just beginning to digest the sweeping implications of the ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, in which the court’s conservative supermajority overturned a 40-year-old cornerstone of US administrative law known as “Chevron deference.” In doing so, the justices vastly limited the power of federal agencies to issue regulations on everything from financial markets to industrial pollution to drug pricing to workplace safety. 

. . .

And abortion. And birth control. And trans equality. And pregnant workers’ rights. “It’s hard to overstate the significance of the Loper Bright and Relentless decision” on reproductive and gender issues and federal policy more broadly, says Shaina Goodman, director for reproductive health and rights at the National Partnership for Women and Families. “It has deep and far-reaching consequences that we will see play out over the coming years.” That’s because many of the major regulations protecting or expanding reproductive and gender rights have been the result of federal agencies interpreting statutes enacted by Congress.

. . .

Certainly, anti-abortion groups were pleased at their new power to disrupt how federal laws are made and implemented. Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a leading law firm focusing on religious issues, called Loper Bright “a landmark ruling” for groups that oppose abortion and birth control, such as nuns who’ve been fighting the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate for a decade. He predicted that the decision “would likely be the death knell” for, among other things, new Biden administration rules interpreting the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to include workplace accommodations for people having abortions.

. . .

In Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a case involving a North Dakota truck stop and debit-card swipe fees, the court granted litigants virtually unlimited time to file suit over federal rules they claim cause them harm, instead of the six-year statute of limitations that had been in place.

If the implications for reproductive rights weren’t immediately obvious, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made the stakes clear in a blistering dissent. She pointed to efforts by anti-abortion doctors to overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of mifepristone—a case the justices rejected in June on the narrow grounds that the doctors didn’t have standing to sue. Now, Jackson suggested, the FDA’s approval of mifepristone in 2000 would be “fair game.” “From this day forward,” she wrote, “administrative agencies can be sued in perpetuity over every final decision they make…Even the most well-settled agency regulations can be placed on the chopping block.” 

[sarkos]

Just two paragraphs long, Thomas’s opinion in Cuozzo Speed Techs v Lee set out his opposition to the Chevron doctrine, a legal precedent tangentially related to the case that had stood as settled law for decades. Chevron was a critical prop for federal agencies as they worked to protect the American people from pollution, workplace injuries and other public harms. Thomas didn’t like the way Chevron granted federal experts leeway to reasonably interpret ambiguous laws – he claimed that was a legal “fiction” – and so in his concurring opinion he invited any interested party to challenge the precedent. “In an appropriate case,” he said, “this court should reconsider that fiction of Chevron and its progeny.” A few months later, a group calling itself the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) was created with the express purpose of litigating cases before the courts, its top priority being to attack federal regulations and the “administrative state”. NCLA claimed to be non-partisan, but it was founded by former employees of – with $5m seed money from – Charles Koch, the billionaire tycoon who has been a catalyst of ultra-right causes for a generation. In March 2020 NCLA filed a complaint in federal district court that answered Thomas’s call. Relentless Inc v Department of Commerce, twinned with a second case Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, did just as the justice wanted – they challenged the Chevron doctrine as a supposed legal fiction. As Thomas had intended, the twin cases then wound their way up the judicial ladder to the supreme court, and on to his desk. Two weeks ago Thomas joined the other five rightwing justices who now control the supreme court in striking down the Chevron doctrine. Eight years almost to the day after he issued his concurring opinion, the cycle was now complete: his invitation to litigants had spawned a new organisation, backed by Koch, that custom-created a legal challenge designed to reach the supreme court, allowing Thomas and his hard-right peers to gut a cornerstone of modern federal government that had been the law of the land for 40 years.

How Clarence Thomas has provided a list of legal targets to ultra-right groups | Clarence Thomas | The Guardian

[virginiaprelawland]

The Implications of Overturning Chevron Deference: A Paradigm Shift in Administrative Law

By  Tommaso (Tommy) Ceccuzzi, Marymount University Class of 2023

July 5, 2024

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned Chevron deference, a doctrine that has shaped administrative law since 1984. This blog explores the Court's reasoning, the immediate and long-term impacts of this decision, and the implications for various sectors, including healthcare and regulatory law.

Background on Chevron Deference:

Chevron deference emerged from the Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. It mandated that courts defer to a federal agency's interpretation of ambiguous laws it administers, provided the interpretation is reasonable. This two-step process significantly influenced the balance of power between agencies and the judiciary.

The Supreme Court Decision:

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court reviewed whether Chevron deference should be overruled. These cases, decided jointly, involved federal regulations affecting the fishing industry, but their implications extend to all regulations interpreting ambiguous federal laws, including those in healthcare.

In a 6-3 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, the Court concluded that Chevron deference should never have been used, overturning the precedent. The Court made several key points:

1. Independent Judicial Judgment: Courts must use independent judgment to determine the meaning of federal statutes and cannot defer to agency regulation simply because the statute is unclear. The majority opinion states that Chevron deference runs counter to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which mandates that “courts decide legal questions by applying their own judgement.”

2. Agency Expertise: The Court asserted that agencies lack special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. While courts can respect agency expertise on technical issues, Congress expects courts to handle ambiguous statutory questions.

3. Stare Decisis: Although federal courts generally follow prior Supreme Court decisions (stare decisis), the majority opinion deemed the 1984 Chevron decision “flawed and unworkable.” The Court argued there is no reason to wait for Congress to correct this mistake.

4. Impact on Prior Cases: The opinion notes that prior cases relying on Chevron to uphold agency actions are still subject to “statutory stare decisis” and can be upheld even though the deference standard has changed.

The Dissent:

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, authored a 33-page dissent, strongly opposing the majority's decision. Key points from the dissent include:

1. APA Interpretation: Kagan argued that the APA does not specify how courts should review agency regulations, with or without deference. The dissent criticizes the majority for disrupting Chevron, which Kagan describes as the “cornerstone of administrative law.”

2. Stare Decisis Principle: The dissent rebukes the majority for subverting the principle of stare decisis without significant justification beyond disagreement with Chevron.

3. Future Implications: Kagan predicts that existing federal regulations, previously unchallenged under Chevron, will now face new challenges. She emphasizes that the decision grants the Court exclusive power over regulatory law issues, turning it into the “country’s administrative czar.”

Immediate Legal Impacts:

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference has far-reaching and immediate legal impacts. These effects are particularly pronounced in the areas of judicial review, agency authority, and the outcomes of pending cases.

Judicial Review:

One of the most immediate impacts of overturning Chevron deference is the change in how courts review agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Previously, under Chevron, courts would defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. This two-step process often meant that as long as the agency's interpretation was not arbitrary or capricious, it would be upheld.

With Chevron deference no longer in place, courts are now required to engage in independent judicial analysis of statutes. This means judges must interpret the law without giving substantially less weight to the agency's interpretation. The shift necessitates that judges delve deeper into the legislative history, statutory text, and context to determine the statute's meaning. This change could lead to diversity in judicial decisions, as courts will no longer defer to agency interpretations. However, it could also increase the complexity and length of litigation as courts take on a more active role in statutory interpretation.

Agency Authority:

Federal agencies have historically relied on Chevron deference to interpret and implement ambiguous statutes with a degree of autonomy. The ability to define ambiguous terms allowed agencies to adapt regulations to changing circumstances and specialized knowledge.

The removal of Chevron deference reduces the discretion and authority agencies have traditionally exercised. Agencies must now anticipate greater judicial scrutiny of their interpretations and may be more conservative in their rulemaking to avoid potential legal challenges. This could result in agencies issuing more detailed and less flexible regulations to ensure their interpretations are upheld in court. Additionally, agencies might experience an increased administrative burden as they justify their interpretations more thoroughly, anticipating that courts will no longer give them the benefit of the doubt.

Pending Cases:

The overturning of Chevron deference will have an immediate impact on pending cases that involve agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. Cases that were previously likely to be resolved in favor of agency interpretations may now see different outcomes as courts apply independent analysis.

For example, regulatory disputes in sectors like healthcare, environmental law, and financial regulation could be revisited under this new standard. Agencies defending their interpretations will now need to present more robust arguments to convince courts of their statutory readings. This shift could lead to reversals of agency decisions, modifications of existing regulations, and potential delays as courts take longer to arrive at decisions without the guiding framework of Chevron deference.

Moreover, litigants challenging agency actions might be emboldened by the Court's decision, leading to an increase in legal challenges against agency interpretations. This could create a more litigious environment where businesses, advocacy groups, and individuals are more likely to contest agency regulations in court.

Long-Term Implications:

- Administrative Law: This decision reshapes administrative law principles, potentially leading to increased judicial involvement in regulatory interpretations.

- Regulatory Environment: Agencies might approach rulemaking and enforcement with greater caution, anticipating stricter judicial scrutiny.

- Separation of Powers: The decision underscores a shift in the balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Potential Challenges and Criticisms:

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference has raised several challenges and criticisms, highlighting potential issues in judicial and regulatory practices.

Practical Challenges:

1. Technical Expertise: Courts may struggle to interpret complex, technical statutes without agency guidance. Agencies like the EPA and FDA have specialized knowledge that judges typically lack.

2. Increased Workload: Judges will need to conduct more thorough analyses, increasing the judicial workload and potentially leading to longer case resolution times.

3. Consistency and Predictability: The absence of Chevron deference may result in less predictable and consistent court rulings, complicating compliance and strategic planning for regulated entities.

Criticisms:

1. Judicial Activism: Critics argue that the decision reflects judicial activism, as the Court is seen as overstepping by overturning established precedent without a compelling reason beyond disagreement.

2. Expertise Gap: There is concern about the expertise gap between judges and specialized agencies. Agencies possess the necessary background to interpret complex regulatory schemes effectively, a capability that generalist judges may lack.

Expert Opinions:

- Legal Scholars: Some legal scholars view the decision as a necessary correction, while others see it as destabilizing established administrative law principles.

- Industry Perspectives: Stakeholders in regulated industries, such as healthcare, express concerns about increased uncertainty and potential disruptions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference marks a significant shift in administrative law. While it aims to restore judicial independence in statutory interpretation, it also raises concerns about increased judicial workload and potential instability in regulatory practices. As the legal community and regulated industries adjust to this new landscape, the long-term impacts will continue to unfold.

______________________________________________________________

- Legal Precedents: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

- Academic Articles: Various legal commentaries and scholarly articles on Chevron deference and administrative law.

- Official Opinions: Links to the majority and dissenting opinions from the Supreme Court decision.

[usalatestwebstories]

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies

OPINION ANALYSIS By Amy Howe on Jun 28, 2024 at 12:37 pm The court ruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce on Friday. (Thomas Hawk via Flickr) This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m. In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that…

[mongowheelie]

I found this on NewsBreak: The cynicism of the Supreme Court: Helping Trump kill the American experiment

I found this on NewsBreak: The cynicism of the Supreme Court: Helping Trump kill the American experiment

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

In nearly four hours of arguments on Wednesday, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court debated who should be deciding how are laws in our country are implemented. By the end of the arguments, the six-justice conservative majority appeared ready — some of the justices, eager — to jettison a 40-year old ruling that has courts defer to executive branch agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws when an agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Instead, the argument goes, the courts should not need to defer to agencies and their expertise. It is an unworkable power grab that would upend federal administrative law — pushing power to the courts now that conservatives and business interests believe they are most likely to regularly find support from that branch. The practical problem with this argument was most cleanly laid out by Justice Elena Kagan, who asked Roman Martinez, the Latham & Watkins partner arguing for one of the challengers, about when there’s a question about whether a new product supporting “healthy cholesterol levels” is a dietary supplement or a drug. “You want the courts to decide that?“ The lawyers for the challengers to the rule — Chevron deference, named after the 1984 case that laid out the rule — kept insisting that their problem was that the rule has resulted in the executive branch taking over the “interpretive” function, as Martinez said a half-dozen times. It was one of the most disingenuous arguments I’ve seen at the Supreme Court. It’s nothing more than a rhetorical trick. You could just as easily refer to the actions in question as executive functions — a point that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made repeatedly in the first argument. (She recused herself from the second argument.) “What I'm stuck on is what seems to be an assumption in your argument that every question posed with respect to interpreting a statute is a legal one,” Jackson told Martinez. “I see Chevron as doing the very important work of helping courts stay away from policymaking …. [H]elp me understand why, if we do away with Chevron's framework, we won't have a problem of courts actually making a policy decision.”

In oral arguments for a pair of cases (Relentless, Inc v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) at SCOTUS yesterday, the radical right-wing majority on the court appears ready to eviscerate the Chevron doctrine by making impossible any agency to have regulatory power.

See Also:

Slate: The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents

HuffPost: Supreme Court's Conservatives Poised To Take Down Decades-Old Precedent

Balls and Strikes: Why Right-Wing Activists Have Strong Opinions About the Supreme Court’s Big Fishing Regulations Case