Next week proved disastrous for both Joe Biden’s political campaign and the operational state, where both Biden and his fellow Democrats used their methods to impose their own policies. The judicial branch does work to end the unconstitutionally aggressive energy that has been seized by the word soup of governmental agencies established since the New Deal, according to two Supreme Court decisions that come after Biden’s fatal conversation.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday overturning the Chevron theory dealt the most obvious punch to the administrative state. The Chevron doctrine “require]d ] courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute so long as the agency’s interpretation]was ] ‘ reasonable.'” As long as the jury determined it to be “reasonable,” reference was made even in instances where the agency’s interpretation of the legislation was inconsistent.
Chevron devotion has long been referred to as our “fourth tree” of government as a powerful tool for the administrative state to appoint lawmaking authority from Congress. By declaring legal language confusing, federal companies have, for decades, succeeded in expanding their power — and making laws in Congress’s lieu.
The circumstances surrounding the high court’s decision to overrule Chevron on Friday in the Loper Bright and Continuous cases serve as an excellent illustration of operational abuse that results from an ambiguity finding. Both of those cases challenged the Department of Commerce’s law that give monitors paid by the organization to board the boats when they are on fishing trips. More than some officers made, and at times, the regular price of these monitors exceeds$ 700, which is more than the value of their grab for the day.
According to legal terminology, the Department of Commerce claimed it had the power to “prescribe for different measures, requirements, or conditions and restrictions as are determined to get necessary and appropriate for the protection and management of the fishery.” based on this claim, the department claimed it had the authority to command the fisheries for the cost of monitors. The lower courts upheld the agency’s rule mandating the fisheries pay for the cost of the government-mandated monitors, relying on Chevron deference.  ,
The Supreme Court overturned Chevron, ruling that the doctrine complies with the Administrative Procedure Act or” APA” or the Supreme Court. According to the APA, courts must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be… not in accordance with law.” According to the court in Loper Bright/Relentless, the APA mandates courts to interpret statutory language, not agencies. Thus, the high court argued that refusing to agree with an agency’s interpretation of the law conflicts with the APA.
The Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy on Thursday morning provided an earlier contraction of the administrative state’s power, despite Friday’s decision in the fishery cases receiving the most media attention. The Supreme Court ruled in Jarkesy that the Securities and Exchange Commission had violated George Jarkesy‘s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by denying him$ 300,000 for alleged civil security fraud. Instead of going to court in federal court with a jury, the SEC and an administrative law judge decided the case in-house.
The SEC serves simultaneously as prosecutor, judge, and jury in addition to the number of federal agencies that use administrative proceedings to” try” citizens for alleged violations of their rules and regulations. Thus, while Jarkesy concerned only the SEC’s civil enforcement proceedings, the effects of the decision on the administrative state, like that of Loper Bright/Relentless, will be substantial.
The trio of cases provide hope for the eventual dissolution of the administrative state, which is a “federal Leviathan” that unelected bureaucrats “govern almost every aspect of modern life, including who may use what bathrooms.” The court’s analysis of the last week’s decisions, in addition to the various concurrences, suggests that Jarkesy and Loper Bright/Relentless are merely the foreshocks for the real seismic shift that will shift power away from administrative agencies to the proper branch of government, as mandated by our constitutional order.
Consider, for instance, the holding in Loper Bright/Relentless: In that case, the court overruled Chevron based on the APA, holding the deference doctrine conflicted with the statutory language. However, the majority opinion’s analysis began with the Constitution and Article II I’s grant of the authority to hear” Cases” and” Controversies,” which are concrete disputes with consequences for the parties involved.
The chief justice then traced the doctrine of judicial review from the framers to Marbury v. Madison, and through” the following decades”, before concluding that interpreting the law, as a last resort, is” a’ solemn duty’ of the Judiciary”. The court discussed the crass expansion of federal agencies under the New Deal after praising its” solemn duty” as the head of the third branch of government to interpret the law. The majority opinion only came to mind the APA’s text at this point, pointing out first that Congress passed it in 1946″ as a check upon administrators whose zeal might otherwise have carried them to excesses not contemplated in legislation creating their offices.”
The chief justice praised the” complete reversal of the place of administrative agencies in a regime of separate and divided powers.”
This constitutional sojourn proves significant when read in light of Loper Bright/Relentless‘s statement that” ]i ] n a case involving an agency, of course, the statute’s meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion”.
The majority opinion continued, adding that” Congress has frequently enacted such statutes” before adding that” the role of the reviewing court under the APA is, as always, to independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress subject to constitutional limitations.”
That” subject to constitutional limits” language is a huge caveat, to which Justice Thomas ‘ concurrence provided life. Justice Thomas wrote separately to highlight the “more fundamental problem” with Chevron deference, despite the majority opinion’s holding resting on the simple language of the ADA. ” Chevron deference”, Justice Thomas explained, “also violates our Constitution’s separation of powers”.
The originalist stressed that” ]t ] o provide’ practical and real protections for individual liberty,’ the Framers drafted a Constitution that divides the legislative, executive, and judicial powers between three branches of Government”. Additionally,” Chevron deference compromises this separation of powers” by expanding [agency’s ] executive power beyond constitutional limits. It also infringes on the judicial power afforded to the courts. ” The” formulation of policy,” Thomas added, cannot be exercised by the executive agency without representing an unconstitutional exercise of the” legislative Powers vested in Congress.”
While none of the other justices joined Thomas ‘ concurrence, the six- justice majority in Loper Bright/Relentless all signed off on Chief Justice Roberts ‘ opinion. And that majority opinion also supported constitutional separations of powers and said the court’s role in statute interpretation was” subject to the constitutional limitations that Congress must face.”  ,
These details foretell future Supreme Court decisions that will further contract the administrative state, which is based solely on the structural rules of the Constitution, which restrain the legislative branch from enacting laws.  ,
Justice Thomas joined Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in Jarkesy, which further demonstrates that the Supreme Court is prepared to find that our constitutional structure further limits the administrative state. Gorsuch argued in his support of that decision-making delegation from the judicial branch to the SEC in his opinion, as well as the Seventh Amendment and Article III. Gorsuch expressly rejected the Biden administration’s view that” at a minimum,” Congress could” create new statutory obligations, impose civil penalties for their violation, and then commit to an administrative agency the function of deciding whether a violation has in fact occurred. ” Such legislation would violate Article III of the Constitution, the due process clause, and the Seventh Amendment, the concurrence explained.
The emphasis on Article III once more suggests that the justices are entering a new era of jurisprudence, one that examines whether the country’s current administrative state can be reconciled with fundamental principles of separation of powers. Given that our founding fathers divided power in the Constitution among only three branches of government, the Supreme Court will determine that the so-called fourth branch of government has only limited authority if Jarkesy and Loper Bright/Relentless can provide any insight.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She then worked for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as a permanent law clerk for nearly 25 years. Former full-time university professor, Cleveland teaches adjunct occasionally. Additionally, Cleveland serves as a lawyer for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is a follower of her greatest accomplishments, her dear husband and dear son, on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. Cleveland’s views are those expressed here in her personal capacity.
