Weekly Column: Congress Writes Laws, Not Bureaucrats

Idaho was among 27 States that jointly implored the U.S. Supreme Court to scrap the Chevron doctrine.  The States noted that, since the Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. decision ruling 40 years ago--establishing the Chevron doctrine--federal agencies have published more than 2.5 million pages of final regulations, surpassing enacted laws at a rate of 26-to-1.  Regulatory costs exceed every cost for Americans but housing, and federal rules impose an average of $11,700 per employee per year on small businesses.  Overreaching federal regulation discourages job growth and competition in Idaho and throughout the United States.  Fortunately, after years of confusion and uncertainty, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron, restoring integrity, transparency and constitutional adherence to the federal judiciary. 

In its recent Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce et al. ruling, the Court reinforced our country’s foundational principle of the separation of powers.  Under our system of government, Congress writes federal laws, the executive enforces the laws and the courts interpret the laws.  The Supreme Court found its earlier Chevron decision, which deferred interpretation of ambiguous laws to Executive Branch agencies, was “fundamentally misguided.”  Judges have a core responsibility to decide disputes impartially while following the law.

This ruling is consequential because it would provide better scrutiny of federal policy impacting Idahoans and all Americans.  Under the shadow of Chevron, federal agencies were emboldened to engage in policymaking that circumvented Congress and preempted state law.  For example, Congress intended the Clean Water Act (CWA) to divide responsibilities between the federal government and states; however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took authorities Congress intended for States in regulating certain potential pollutant sources.  As the 27 States in the previously mentioned brief to the Court raised, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers redrew the boundary lines for the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) that are subject to the CWA multiple times making new law while Americans have paid the price of this dysfunction.

Additionally, in recent years, the Chevron doctrine has spurred small business closures, investment withdrawals, and, in a particularly notable case, the denial of disability benefits to an American veteran.  Countless plaintiffs have undoubtedly shied away from filing justified suits, recognizing the Chevron doctrine stacked the deck in favor of the federal bureaucracy. 

The ruling will not eliminate federal overreach, but federal rules will have to withstand deeper scrutiny with the courts as a stronger backstop for sustaining congressional intent.  The Supreme Court overturned the legal doctrine that courts should defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute, and there will be heightened importance for judicial awareness of agencies’ actions and review of agencies’ interpretations of the law.  Moving forward, agency overreach, such as the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Direct File program, which lacks statutory authority and wastes taxpayer funding, is on even shakier ground.

Certainty, predictability and consistency spur job growth, economic competition and meaningful protections of individual liberty.  With those core constitutional principles in mind, I have pressed judicial nominees from Democrat and Republican presidents alike on the importance of upholding the judiciary’s pivotal role, which Chevron undermined.  In the Loper ruling, the Court has restored the framework Americans rightly expect and have fought to protect.  With the Chevron doctrine behind us, Congress must write clear laws, as federal agencies write regulations that implement these laws and courts write opinions that interpret these laws.  This is the system our country’s Founders envisioned and the system I work steadily to uphold.

# # #