The Association of Retired Attorneys of Sarasota would like to invite all its members to our luncheon:

​

Thursday, December 19th at 12 Noon

at Marina Jack, 2 Marina Plaza, Sarasota, FL. 

​

Please make your luncheon payment using the PayPal link

at the bottom of the webpage.

 

December Program:

​

The Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron Doctrine

and its potential impact on federal agencies.

 

In the consolidated cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Secretary of Commerce and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron v. NRDC, the 1984 case that established the bedrock Chevron doctrine.

 

The underlying cases themselves addressed a narrow question of fishery management law: Whether the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) requirement that certain vessels pay for federal observers onboard their boats was consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. But embedded in that focused question was a bigger methodological issue: Whether a court adjudicating that administrative law dispute could use the Chevron doctrine, which requires some deference to NMFS’s interpretation, or whether the court should decide the question on its own. The D.C. Circuit and the First Circuit both relied on Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984) and deferred to NMFS’s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

 

In a 6-3 opinion, with the majority authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court vacated both of those cases and overruled Chevron. The Court held that Chevron was inconsistent with both the constitutional obligation of courts to say what the law is, and with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). And the Court held that the stare decisis factors did not support retaining Chevron, which the Court described as grievously wrong from the outset. Going forward, courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In dissent, Justice Kagan defended Chevron as “rooted in a presumption of legislative intent,” and a “rule of judicial humility” that the majority has replaced with a “rule of judicial hubris.”

 

Prof. Virelli will speak on the likely impact of Loper Bright on administrative law, including the potential increase in the number of challenges to agency action and the likelihood of success of those challenges.

​