The United States Supreme Court has agreed to reevaluate the 1984 case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a landmark decision that established criteria for determining when courts should defer to a government agency's interpretation of the law. The reconsideration comes as part of an appeal from Atlantic herring fishermen who argue that the National Marine Fisheries Service lacks authority in requiring them to pay government monitors' salaries aboard their fishing vessels.
Conservative justices have expressed skepticism towards Chevron and the broader concept of the administrative state, arguing that agencies are often too shielded from essential checks and balances integral to maintaining separation of powers.
This development marks a significant new conflict with potential implications for limiting federal regulatory power, as abolishing this legal doctrine could restrict agencies' abilities to define their own authority.
The case at hand focuses on whether herring fishermen off New England's coast can be compelled by the government to fund a program supplying federal monitors for their operations. Two fishing companies contend that while the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates vessel owners accommodate federal monitors onboard, it does not necessitate payment for these individuals.
In addition, Monday saw the Supreme Court decline a challenge against an Indiana law mandating cremation or burial of embryonic or fetal remains following abortion procedures. Notably absent from this decision was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who recused herself without providing further explanation—a common practice among justices in such situations.
As more details emerge regarding this breaking news story, updates will follow accordingly.
"Revisiting this precedent demonstrates our commitment toward ensuring governmental accountability and upholding constitutional principles," said Chief Justice John Roberts in response to accepting this controversial case.