The Supreme Court issued several rulings this past week that curtails the federal regulatory system, attracting praise from conservatives and condemnation from progressives.
The most impactful decision was to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine in 6-3 decision along ideological lines, which required the federal judiciary to defer to the interpretation of regulatory agencies when interpreting ambiguous language in federal regulatory statutes passed by Congress, as long as their interpretation are reasonable.
The Chevron deference doctrine had been in force since a 1984 decision and has since been cited in thousands of cases. The Supreme Court in its majority ruling said that those case decision can stand, though the judiciary can no longer simply defer to the agencies’ interpretations in future cases and must interpret ambiguous statutes independently.
Critics of the decision says this ruling will lead to expertise being overruled by ideologically driven judges as well as leading to more regulatory uncertainty as agencies can later be overruled by judicial decisions.
Proponents of the decision dismiss the uncertainty argument, saying that regulatory interpretations are already changed as new administrations take office and that this will force Congress to use less ambiguous and tighter language when writing legislation.
The Supreme Court also ruled against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in another 6-3 decision, ruling that targets of civil enforcement can have their cases heard by a jury trial rather than by agency adjudication bodies. While in-house a judication had Congress’s approval, the majority opinion ruled that it violated the Seventh Amendment’s protection of right to trial by jury. Critics claim this ruling will stymie regulatory efforts, given the expense and length of jury trials.