From THE DAILY CALLER
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET HAGEMAN
CONTRIBUTORS
For two generations, the Chevron Doctrine has granted federal agencies unfair advantages, outsized authority and unconstitutional power in interpreting laws and enacting regulations. On Friday, the Supreme Court righted that wrong.
The phrase “Equal justice under the law” is carved into the stone above the main entrance to the Supreme Court. But since the advent of the Chevron Doctrine, courts have favored the wishes, opinions, and agendas of unelected bureaucrats while imposing unfair burdens on the American people. This doctrine, established in 1984 in Chevron v. NRDC, instructs courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of laws when the agencies themselves believe the underlying law is ambiguous or even silent.
As a constitutional and water rights lawyer, I have seen firsthand how Chevron's reticence has tipped the scales of justice against the American people and in favor of the federal government. In short, the judiciary has abdicated its duty to interpret and apply the law for nearly 40 years, blindly trusting that the agencies would interpret the scope of their own power and the meaning of the law.
I have spent decades fighting against Chevron deprivation in my role as a private attorney and while serving as senior litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens from unlawful regulatory overreach.
The Chevron Deference strips authority from our courts and encourages federal agencies to exceed and abuse the powers given to them by Congress. While the best antidote to an oppressive, overbearing executive branch is a strong Congress, the Supreme Court's decision to end the Chevron Deference is a huge step toward restoring our constitutional freedoms and separation of powers.
This decision has drawn strong support from those who want to give unlimited power to the administrative state. How will government function? How will legislators and courts keep up with all this extra work? How will anyone know what a bill or law means? We need the “experts” to decide! Let's examine this hysteria.
For about two centuries, our federal government functioned—and I would even argue it functioned better—without relying on the Chevron Doctrine. Congress passed laws, agencies enforced them, and when adjustments were needed, Congress could pass or repeal laws to fix specific problems, or our courts would rule on them. While not even the greatest Congress can avoid some ambiguity in the way laws are written, it can be reduced through more carefully considered and thoroughly researched work. Courts have always interpreted the meaning of laws—and being required to “defer” to an agency's view just because it might be considered “reasonable” should offend judges everywhere.
Congress has ceded its lawmaking power to unelected bureaucrats for far too long. Administrative legislation that citizens and businesses must comply with has far outpaced actual lawmaking in America. The Biden administration enacted 4,429 final laws in 2021. The following year, it enacted 3,168. During the same period, Congress passed only 365 bills that became law. This discrepancy is a stunning reality check—it was federal bureaucrats, not your elected representatives, who made laws, and none of them are accountable to you.
This decision has drawn strong support from those who want to give unlimited power to the administrative state. How will government function? How will legislators and courts keep up with all this extra work? How will anyone know what a bill or law means? We need the “experts” to decide! Let's examine this hysteria.
For about two centuries, our federal government functioned—and I would even argue it functioned better—without relying on the Chevron Doctrine. Congress passed laws, agencies enforced them, and when adjustments were needed, Congress could pass or repeal laws to fix specific problems, or our courts would rule on them. While not even the greatest Congress can avoid some ambiguity in the way laws are written, it can be reduced through more carefully thought-out and thoroughly researched work. Courts have always interpreted the meaning of laws—and judges everywhere should have to “defend” to an agency's view just because it might be considered “reasonable,” and that should offend them.
Congress has ceded its lawmaking power to unelected bureaucrats for far too long. Administrative legislation that citizens and businesses must comply with has far outpaced actual lawmaking in America. The Biden administration enacted 4,429 final laws in 2021. The following year, it enacted 3,168. During the same period, Congress passed only 365 bills that became law. This discrepancy is a stunning reality check—it was federal bureaucrats, not your elected representatives, who made laws, and none of them are accountable to you.
The end of Chevron subordination means a return to a system of government that is more consistent with our constitutional republic (although CNN apparently doesn't know what that means).
Congresswoman Harriet Hageman is serving her first term as Wyoming's representative in the U.S. House of Representatives. She serves on the House Judiciary Committee, the Special Subcommittee on Armament of the Federal Government, and the Committee on Natural Resources.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.
Like this:
Is loading…
