The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided on two lawsuits brought by small fishing companies seeking to prevent federal agencies from enforcing required shipboard observer salaries and overturn precedent that favors government agencies' interpretations of the law. The case is scheduled to be heard. .

Under its interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will provide small fishing companies with $700 per day to pay the salaries of federally mandated onboard lifeguards. issued regulations mandating the payment of more than A pair of cases presented before a judge; Roper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. vs. Department of Commerceis asking the Supreme Court to repeal a decade-old doctrine that lower courts have relied on to uphold the agency's interpretation of the law: Chevron deference.

Founded in 1984 by the landmark Supreme Court decision, Respect for Chevron requires courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of the law when the language is ambiguous. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents plaintiffs in the Relentless lawsuit, To tell The court filing argues that this doctrine creates “systemic bias in litigation between citizens and governments.”

“A fair trial by an impartial judge is a fundamental aspect of due process,” NCLA litigation attorney Kara Rollins told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “But Chevron's deference biases judges against one litigant against another, and against the most powerful government in the field, even if it is inferior to the interpretations of private groups and courts. But when an agency's position is merely rational, it creates a systematic bias in its favor.”

Fishermen are interested in fighting the regulation because it will affect their daily operations and reduce their profits by 20%. according to on court documents.

in court simpleThe New England Fisheries Management Association (NEFSA) states that “removing a single, well-trained, well-prepared, experienced crew from a small, complex vessel designed to spend a week or more in the North Atlantic… “This means that safety is rapidly declining.”

“Replacing a maritime observer with a recent high school graduate who has completed all 12 days of training would spiral the risk of catastrophe into the stratosphere,” the brief explains.

NEFSA CEO Jerry Lehman told DCNF that many of the monitors have no experience on the water. “They are mostly landlocked people,” he said, noting that some “don't even come out of their boxes because they're sick.” “We pay them more than we pay our own crew, and yet we end up babysitting and feeding them,” Lehman told DCNF.

His organization claims that the agency's “experts” did not consider these factors before issuing the rules. “None of these concerns preoccupied the agency in promulgating this final rule,” the briefing explains. “In fact, the agency, with Chevron's characteristic bureaucratic, omnipotent arrogance, made no mention of them in its administrative records.”

Other groups are not ready to let go of their respect for agency. Science advocacy groups, including medical and environmental groups, asked the Supreme Court in a separate brief to protect regulators' powers, warning of devastating consequences if they don't.

coalition of public health organizations claimed Reversing Chevron “could disrupt access to care provided by Medicare and Medicaid in all geographic regions, all income levels, and all types of medical and public health needs.” (Related: Christian groups target legal doctrine as key to protecting religious freedom)

in court simpleDemocratic senators, including Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Maisie Hirono of Hawaii, the late Dianne Feinstein of California, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, similarly argued that “the unelected court ” argued that we should “respect career professionals.”

Will Yeatman, a senior legal fellow at the Pacific Law Foundation, told DCNF in October that government agencies are often respected on matters in which they are not experts. “We don't have a council of scientists that makes big decisions, and then the political arm follows suit,” Yetman said. “That’s not how our constitution works.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote a statement in court. simple It said lower courts' application of the Supreme Court's 1984 Chevron decision had helped “foster an unpredictable and unstable regulatory landscape defined by an ever-increasing number of federal regulations.”

“The Code of Federal Regulations has grown from more than 110,000 pages in 1984 to more than 180,000 pages in 2021, and the number of pages of regulations binding on U.S. businesses and individuals has increased by 64%,” the summary states. ing. “And the Federal Register went from about 50,000 pages in 1984 to well over 80,000 pages in 2022, an increase of 60%.

James Valbo, executive director of the Institute for Action, said in a statement Tuesday that the lawsuit “puts the livelihoods of family-owned fishing companies in stark relief as the ability to fish for herring is in jeopardy due to illegal government overreach.” ”

“More precisely, these fishing families and businesses find themselves having to pay government fees that are not authorized by Congress,” Valbo said. “This fee was imposed by the executive branch without statutory authority and violates the Constitution's separation of powers.”

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.