In theory, the case is a simple question: Must fishing rig owners pay the government for the mandatory government inspectors who attend those rigs? But in deciding that question, the Supreme Court must consider a more complicated one: How much “deference” do the courts owe to federal regulatory agencies’ interpretations of the law? The prevailing rules, known as Chevron deference after a Supreme Court case involving the oil company, demand wide deference to agencies, but that is now being questioned in a case before the Supreme Court which might reverse or constrain Chevron deference. Joining us to discuss this is Paige Gilliard, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
- The Federalist: 7 Takeaways From Arguments In The SCOTUS Case That Could Slay The Administrative State
- Pacific Legal Foundation: The Separation of Powers, Explained
- Pacific Legal Foundation: Three Chevron Deference nightmares