At the southern tip of the Jersey Shore, a group of Cape May herring fishermen are awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could dramatically impact the health of their industry.
The nation’s top court ruling also could have lasting impact far beyond the boundaries of their industry.
Bill Bright, Wayne Reichle and Stefan Axelsson, representing Cape May-based commercial fishing operations, have accused the government of overreaching when it decided that commercial fishing boats headed out on a trip would have to host and pay for a federal observer to monitor their actions. They have claimed that requiring payment for observers creates a financial burden that they will be hard pressed to overcome.
The fishermen contend the costs of monitors, regardless of the catch, often exceed what members of the crew might make on a fishing expedition. At $700 a day, the cost of one observer would cripple their business.
People are also reading…
As the case has made its way to the Supreme Court, the stakes of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo have grown.
At the heart of the fishermen’s claim is the legal challenge of what is known as the Chevron doctrine, a 1984 legal precedent that requires federal courts to defer to regulatory agencies when grappling with ambiguous laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing what could be one of the most important decisions it makes this term: whether to uphold a 1984 legal precedent known as Chevron, which states that federal courts must defer to regulatory agencies when a law is ambiguous.
While the doctrine has existed for 40 years, it’s more recently become a particular target of conservatives, who believe it places too much authority and power in the hand of bureaucracies to determine laws, rather than courts. The doctrine also favors those same bureaucracies to interpret ambiguous laws, rather than put the power and responsibility to write clear laws in Congress’ domain.
The fishers’ claims have struck a chord with those who would like to see the court dismantle the Chevron doctrine. Conservative groups, such as the Cause of Action Institute and New Civil Liberties Alliance, have rallied behind the fishermen, seeking not only relief from the pay-for-observers rule but a sweeping overturn of Chevron. The conservative argument asserts Congress never granted the executive branch the authority to create such regulations. Also, the claim goes, the Chevron doctrine gives agencies too broad a power to define laws, powers that should rest solely with Congress and the courts.
Court watchers believe the fishermen have a strong enough case, and that the Supreme Court’s more conservative tilt signals favorably against the Chevron doctrine, although a more narrow decision could still result in a win for the herring industry.
The National Resources Defense Council warns of the far-reaching implications of overturning Chevron, contending it would disrupt decades of crucial precedent, vital for the seamless operation of federal agencies. The valid concern here is that federal agencies often require flexibility to interpret laws within their purview without constant micromanagement from Congress. Overturning Chevron could potentially shift the balance of power, placing policy-making responsibilities in the hands of federal judges rather than the designated branches of government.
These are the waters the Supreme Court is navigating. Given the stakes, a good result would be one that addresses the concerns of the fishermen without jeopardizing the stability of the regulatory framework governing our seas.