In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the long-standing doctrine of “Chevron Deference,” a legal principle that had guided how courts interact with federal agency regulations for decades.
This major shift in legal precedent is sending ripples across various sectors, including the commercial fishing industry. As we navigate the implications of this decision, it’s important to understand the essence of Chevron Deference, how its removal might impact fisheries and what the future may hold.
What Was Chevron Deference?
Chevron Deference was established by the Supreme Court in 1984 through the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The doctrine held that when Congress passes a law with ambiguous terms, courts should generally defer to the interpretations made by federal agencies responsible for implementing that law.
The rationale was relatively simple: federal agencies, staffed with experts in their respective fields, were seen as better equipped to interpret and apply complex regulations than the courts.
For decades, this deference doctrine allowed agencies like the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and others to wield significant authority in shaping regulations. NMFS, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is the agency tasked with overseeing federal fisheries, including decisions on managing fish stocks, monitoring, and implementing measures to ensure sustainable practices.
The Recent Decision and Its Implications
The recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Department of Commerce, challenged NMFS’s authority to charge fees for fishing boat onboard observers. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron Deference means that courts are no longer required to automatically defer to agencies’ interpretations when laws are ambiguous.
Instead, courts can now scrutinize these interpretations more rigorously and the agency will have to make the case that their interpretation is reasonable.
So, what does this mean for commercial fisheries? The short answer is, we don’t know. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the observer question, but rather remanded the specific issue of observer fees back to the lower courts to resolve without using the Chevron Deference.
The outcome of that proceeding will be watched very carefully and the broader implications for how regulations will be challenged and interpreted will continue to unfold.
Uncertainties and Complexities
The removal of Chevron Deference introduces a new era of legal uncertainty. It is likely that there will be an increase in legal challenges to both existing and new regulations. The absence of Chevron Deference means that parties dissatisfied with federal regulations where statutes are ambiguous may find it easier to contest them in court.
For commercial fisheries, this could translate into more frequent and potentially prolonged legal battles over management practices, which could be costly and time-consuming, but that could also result in reducing overly restrictive regulations.
Additionally, there may be potential delays in decision-making processes within fishery management councils. As agencies and lawmakers become more cautious to avoid legal pitfalls, there could be delays in updating statutes and in implementing necessary management measures.
This cautious approach might result in slower regulatory responses, impacting the timing for management of fisheries.
The uncertainty also extends to how federal and state regulations might interact. While the ruling pertains specifically to federal regulations, some speculate that court decisions in federal fisheries could set precedents affecting state actions as well.
However, it is important to note that Chevron Deference was not applied in cases involving state agencies, so its impact on state-level fisheries management remains speculative.
While the specifics of how this ruling will impact commercial fishing are still unfolding, many view the reduced power of regulators as a potential win.
Commercial fishing fleets facing increasingly expensive and restrictive management measures, and port communities who have opposed competing ocean and waterfront developments led by other federal agencies, view this ruling as a potential avenue for relief.
This new landscape may be an opportunity to challenge burdensome regulations and fees that have been applied without clear statutory language.
However, this ruling also introduces complexities. Environmental NGOs focusing on domestic fisheries could also leverage this ruling to bolster their efforts, potentially challenging regulations they oppose and advancing their agendas through litigation.
These groups may have more resources and experience in litigation, potentially resulting in more frequent and impactful legal challenges.
Even within commercial fishery sectors and regions, groups with the financial means to afford full-time lobbyists, lawyers, and marketing programs may have a better chance of pushing their priorities through the courts.
This could result in smaller operations facing disadvantages compared to larger entities, exacerbating existing disparities within the industry.
The impact of the Chevron Deference ruling may also vary regionally. Different areas might experience differing levels of regulatory uncertainty and litigation based on local conditions and legal interpretations.
This ruling may also prompt a shift towards more careful and precise drafting of statutes in the future. With the default reliance on agencies to interpret ambiguous laws no longer in place, legislators may be forced to write more explicit and detailed statutes, reducing the need for agencies to fill in the gaps left by vague statutory language.
Caution and Optimism
It’s important to approach this new legal reality with a mix of caution and optimism and with appropriate expectations. The Supreme Court’s decision does not automatically overturn existing regulations or provide immediate relief.
The practical effects of this ruling will unfold gradually as cases work their way through the courts and as new legal precedents are established.
For the commercial fishing industry, the ruling represents both challenges and opportunities. While it may open doors for questioning regulations, it also introduces a level of unpredictability. Staying informed and prepared to adapt to potential changes will be important going forward.
At PCFFA, we will be closely monitoring developments resulting from the new Chevron Deference decision.
Our focus remains on ensuring that all regulatory changes, those where Chevron applied and others, are thoroughly reviewed and that the voices of fishermen are effectively represented.
We will continue to advocate for fair and sustainable fisheries management practices and will never stop working to support the commercial fishing community through challenging and uncertain times.
The best way to stay informed on issues facing commercial fishing locally, regionally and nationally is to get involved in and support your local port associations.
Lisa Damrosch is the executive director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), and comes from a five-generation commercial fishing family working from Half Moon Bay, Calif. She can be reached at the Southwest Regional PCFFA office at P.O. Box 29370, San Francisco, CA 94129-0370, or at lisa@pcffa.org. The phone number for PCFFA’s SF office is (650) 209-0801.