Supreme Court set to hear cases challenging regulation authority of federal agencies

Jan. 17 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that could dramatically reshape how the government regulates critical social concerns and guides the operations of private industries under strict federal rules.

At the heart of the cases is a legal precedent that has upheld the authority of federal agencies to regulate critical national industries including health and public safety, oil and gas, labor, wildlife conservation, the environment, and more for the past 40 years.

The high court will weigh whether to overturn the system that has set decades of federal policy standards across a wide range of industries,

The two related cases, which center around current fisheries regulation, raise doubts about the continued relevance of the 1984 ruling in Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, which at the time played into the Reagan administration's push for less federal regulation.

The Chevron decision allowed administrative agencies to interpret the ambiguities of the law instead of having judges weigh into the rigmarole, leading to debates through the years about the extent of federal oversight authority and its impact on private business.

It gave the Environmental Protection Agency the green light to proceed with a Clean Air Act regulation that soft-pedaled pollution concerns. This left environmental groups upset as they had hoped the court would hold the EPA accountable for stricter measures.

Under the law, every president since Reagan has leveraged the flexibility it provided to agencies when implementing new regulations across a diverse array of issues.

Fast forward to today, as opposition to regulation has increased among business interests and conservatives advocating for a more laissez-faire approach to government, and steer away from what they call an "administrative state."

Both cases being argued on Wednesday center around a challenge to a mandate requiring fishing vessels to contribute funding for collecting scientific data to aid fishery conservation and management efforts.

The lower court ruling in both cases sided with the government.

One of the cases involves a group of herring fishermen based in Cape May, N.J., who, led by plaintiff Bill Bright, operate a family-run seafood business.

Bright said he supports herring conservation, however, he disagrees with the government's decision to make vessel owners, including himself, responsible for paying expenses associated with having federal observers onboard to enforce compliance with government rules.

"We have this hanging over our head and we're not under any illusion," Bright said, according to NPR. "Once they start charging us for the monitor, that's never going away."

The plaintiffs claim they are required to pay as much as $710 a day to accommodate the independent observers, draining their business earnings.

The impact of the case reaches far beyond the fishing industry as government regulation touches a wide variety of business sectors, while the plaintiffs have received backing from major conservative advocates, including the Gun Owners of America.

Meanwhile, Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, has been a vocal critic of the Chevron ruling, a decision that emerged during the tenure of his mother, Anne Gorsuch, as head of the EPA during the Reagan administration.

Notably, she had left the position following a scandal related to the agency's handling of pollution cleanups by the time the Chevron case came before the Supreme Court.

Progressive groups, including environmentalists, want to keep the 1984 ruling in place as they believe it empowers agencies to address challenging issues such as climate change, especially in the absence of legislation from Congress.

The Supreme Court recently intervened in a similar case of agency authority, rejecting the Department of Education plan to forgive billions in dollars in student loan debt, stopping the COVID-19 vaccination test rule for big businesses, and limiting the EPA's control over carbon emissions from power plants.