Four justices appeared absolutely determined, on Wednesday, to overrule one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in the Court’s entire history.
Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council (1984) is arguably as important to the development of federal administrative law — an often technical area of the law, but one that touches on literally every single aspect of American life — as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was important to the development of the law of racial equality. Chevron is a foundational decision, which places strict limits on unelected federal judges’ ability to make policy decisions for the entire nation.
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during Wednesday’s arguments, Chevron forces judges to grapple with a very basic question: “When does the court decide that this is not my call?”
And yet, four members of the Supreme Court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — spent much of Wednesday’s arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce speaking of Chevron with the same contempt most judges reserve for cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the pro-segregation decision rejected by Brown.
The open question is whether the Court’s four most strident opponents of this foundational ruling can find a fifth vote.
None of the Court’s three Democratic appointees were open to the massive transfer of power to federal judges contemplated by the plaintiffs in these two cases. That leaves Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the two votes that remain uncertain. To prevail — and to keep Chevron alive — the Justice Department needed its arguments to persuade both Roberts and Barrett to stay their hands.
Your CAFE suit would never succeed, and there is no way the courts would allow the plaintiff to craft a new standard.
Also, in my opinion, Chevron Deference allows review to determine if the standards reasonably meet the law without allowing courts to dictate policy. We just fundamentally disagree.
The hypothetical scenarios I presented include the assumption that the plaintiffs have conclusively proven incompetence or malfeasance on the part of the agency, and offered a remedy to correct them. Under Chevron, these suits would fail, because the court is not allowed to consider whether the agency’s actions are effective, but must instead defer to the agency’s own evaluation of their effectiveness.
That my suit would fail demonstrates the problem.
No, you don’t get it, even without Chevron, I guarantee your suit would fail. If you think you would win, please cite a statute that would invalidate the NHTSA’s method?
I also like how you assume that you can prove incompetence or malfeasance. That is near impossible to prove.
Under a proper standard, it’s a longshot. Under Chevron, it’s an impossibility.