In both cases, conservative justices on the Supreme Court have pressed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress rather than judges.
The Supreme Court is considering two cases that could significantly weaken the power of federal agencies to interpret and enforce laws.
The Supreme Court is considering two cases that could significantly weaken the power of federal agencies to interpret and enforce laws. The first case involves Atlantic herring fishermen who are challenging a regulation requiring them to pay for regulatory monitors on their boats, while the second case concerns fishing fleets and business groups who are also fighting against this rule. In both cases, conservative justices on the Supreme Court have pressed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress rather than judges. If the court rules in favor of these challenges, it could lead to a dramatic reduction in the power of executive agencies and make it harder for future presidents to defend their regulatory agendas against legal challenges.
The Supreme Court is being asked to eliminate the Chevron doctrine entirely.
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court are pressing for judges to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress, rather than federal bureaucrats.
If the court rules as conservatives have urged them too, judges will be at risk of becoming 'uber-legislators' and overstepping their bounds.
The Chevron doctrine holds that when a statute is ambiguous and a federal agency crafts a regulation based on its own interpretation of the statute, judges must uphold the regulation. It was intended to stop judges from overriding the policy or technical expertise of agencies.
Both Democrats and Republicans have used Chevron to defend their agendas.
The Supreme Court has already distanced itself from Chevron by avoiding using it to decide a case, but not eliminating it entirely. In two cases argued Wednesday, the justices are being asked to eliminate Chevron entirely.
Chevron opponents argue that inconsistent findings of ambiguity in the lower courts are evidence that the high court needs to do something and should more thoroughly use other tools of interpretation before deciding a statute is ambiguous.
The Supreme Court has stopped short of actually overturning Chevron, leaving it the law of the land for lower courts that settle such cases routinely. In two cases pending at the Supreme Court both concerning a commercial fishing rule that requires fishermen to pay for regulatory monitors on their boats, there were disparate findings of ambiguity in the lower courts despite a relatively basic question.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that agencies, unlike judges, have expertise, experience and knowledge of the consequences of policy choices.
Accuracy
During arguments, attorneys and justices on each side of the argument contended that their position would produce more stability in the law. Chevron opponents said the courts' deference to agencies encourages them to flip-flop when a new administration comes in. Chevron supporters said encouraging judges to defer to agencies in some circumstances leads to more policy uniformity across the nation.
Deception
(90%)
The article discusses the Supreme Court's potential to weaken federal agency power by eliminating or modifying the Chevron doctrine. The author and justices express concerns about ambiguous laws being interpreted by judges rather than bureaucrats, which could lead to more legal challenges for regulatory agendas. They also argue that this would strip power from executive branches and make it harder for presidents to defend their policies against judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court is considering eliminating the Chevron doctrine entirely.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the Supreme Court's potential to weaken federal agency power by eliminating the Chevron doctrine. The author and other conservative justices on the court are pushing for judges to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress rather than relying on federal bureaucrats. This would strip power from executive branches, making it harder for presidents to defend their regulatory agendas against legal challenges.
The Supreme Court is being asked to eliminate the Chevron doctrine entirely.
Neil Gorsuch is a Supreme Court justice who has shown defiance and anti-regulatory fervor in recent years.
Justice Gorsuch has voted against regulations that protect the environment, student-debt forgiveness and Covid-19 precautions.
In early 2022, Justice Gorsuch declined to wear a mask while sitting on the bench during a Covid-19 spike.
Neil Gorsuch's mother is Anne Gorsuch who was a former chief of the Environmental Protection Agency and cut air and water quality regulations in the early 1980s.
Anne Gorsuch fought with environmentalists, was held in contempt by Congress and eventually resigned under pressure from the Ronald Reagan White House.
Justice Gorsuch has led calls on the court for reversal of a 1984 Supreme Court decision known as Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council which gives federal agencies considerable regulatory latitude.
The Chevron principle dictates that when disputes arise over regulation of an ambiguous law, judges should defer to agency interpretations of the law if the interpretations are reasonable.
The Supreme Court has already distanced itself from Chevron by avoiding using it to decide a case, but not eliminating it entirely. In two cases argued Wednesday, the justices are being asked to eliminate Chevron entirely.
Accuracy
Neil Gorsuch has shown defiance and anti-regulatory fervor in recent years.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents Neil Gorsuch as a defiant figure who has shown his own brand of anti-regulatory fervor by voting against regulations that protect the environment and student debt forgiveness. However, this portrayal is misleading because it does not provide any context or evidence to support these claims. Secondly, the article implies that Gorsuch's call for reversal of a 1984 Supreme Court decision is motivated by his mother's tenure as EPA chief and her controversial policies during that time. However, this connection is not explicitly stated in the article and may be speculative or biased. Finally, the article presents Gorsuch as leading calls on the court for reversal of a 1984 Supreme Court decision without providing any evidence to support this claim.
The article portrays Neil Gorsuch as a defiant figure who has shown his own brand of anti-regulatory fervor. However, there is no context or evidence provided in the article to support these claims.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Neil Gorsuch has shown his own brand of defiance and anti-regulatory fervor without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma when they state that Congress's ability to write open-ended laws is either reasonable or not, implying that there are only two options. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric with the use of words like
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Neil Gorsuch has shown his own brand of defiance and anti-regulatory fervor without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
<br> The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric with the use of words like 'flamboyant', 'defiant figure' and 'contempt by Congress.'
The author makes a false dilemma when they state that Congress's ability to write open-ended laws is either reasonable or not, implying that there are only two options.
Bias
(85%)
Joan Biskupic has a clear ideological bias in this article. She portrays Neil Gorsuch as an anti-regulatory figure who is hostile towards federal agencies and their power. The author uses language that depicts Gorsuch's actions as defiant, such as 'slashed air and water quality regulations', 'voted against regulations that protect the environment', and 'led calls on the court for reversal of a 1984 Supreme Court decision'. Biskupic also quotes Neil Gorsuch directly in her article, which further reinforces his anti-regulatory stance. The author's use of language is designed to portray Gorsuch as an extreme figure who is hostile towards federal agencies and their power.
Joan Biskupic uses language that depicts Neil Gorsuch as an extreme figure who is hostile towards federal agencies, such as 'defiant', 'anti-regulatory fervor', and 'led calls on the court for reversal of a 1984 Supreme Court decision'. This language is designed to portray Gorsuch in a negative light.
Joan Biskupic uses the phrase 'slashed air and water quality regulations', which implies that Neil Gorsuch was responsible for cutting these regulations, even though she does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
The author quotes Neil Gorsuch directly in her article, saying 'I'm a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and I will do my job as faithfully as I can.' This quote is used to reinforce Gorsuch's anti-regulatory stance.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Joan Biskupic has a conflict of interest on the topics of Neil Gorsuch and Anne Gorsuch as she is married to Neil. She also has a personal relationship with Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council case which was heard at the Supreme Court where her husband served.
Joan Biskupic's marriage to Neil Gorsuch creates a conflict of interest on topics related to him.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Joan Biskupic has a conflict of interest on the topics of Neil Gorsuch and Anne Gorsuch as she is married to Neil. She also has a conflict of interest on the topic of Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council as her husband was involved in that case.
Joan Biskupic's marriage to Neil Gorsuch creates a potential conflict of interest when reporting on him.
The Supreme Court will hear a pair of oral arguments on an issue that could dramatically shrink the power of executive agencies to interpret and enforce federal laws.
It is billed as a fight between what one side calls unchecked government overreach and others see as necessary protection of a broad swath of areas like environmental, health, workplace safety and consumer laws.
Oral arguments begin at 10 a.m. and could go past 1 p.m.
Rulings are expected by late June.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court is being asked to eliminate the Chevron doctrine entirely.
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court are pressing for judges to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress, rather than federal bureaucrats.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that agencies, unlike judges, have expertise, experience and knowledge of the consequences of policy choices.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the issue as a fight between what one side calls unchecked government overreach and others see as necessary protection of a broad swath of areas like environmental, health, workplace safety and consumer laws. However, this is not an accurate representation of the situation. The real issue at hand is whether Atlantic herring fishermen must pay for federal officials to board their vessels to monitor the catches and collect data.
The article states that 'supporters say chaos would ensue if the executive branch were paralyzed from enforcing the thousands of regulations, and if plaintiffs were able to sue every time even minor tweaks were made to long-standing rules.' However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or reasoning. It appears to be a personal opinion rather than an objective analysis.
The article states that 'the reality is that Chevron has already proven itself unworkable, and its corrosive effects on our separation of powers have lingered long enough.' However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or reasoning. It appears to be a personal opinion rather than an objective analysis.
The article quotes Paul Clement stating that 'the government's pleas to retain this misguided and reliance-destroying doctrine fall far short of the mark.' This quote implies that Chevron deference is inherently flawed, but it does not provide any evidence or reasoning to support this claim.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article discusses two separate appeals involving the same issue: whether Atlantic herring fishermen must pay for federal officials to board their vessels to monitor catches and collect data. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented a revised federal mandate in 2020, even though Congress never gave the agency specific authority to launch such a program. The owners say the fees can exceed $700 daily and often exceed the money earned from catching low-priced herring. NOAA has waived the rule temporarily, saying it ran short of funds to administer the monitoring program.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented a revised federal mandate in 2020, even though Congress never gave the agency specific authority to launch such a program.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses two separate appeals involving the same issue: whether Atlantic herring fishermen must pay for federal officials to board their vessels to monitor catches and collect data. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented a revised federal mandate in 2020, even though Congress never gave the agency specific authority to launch such a program. The owners say the fees can exceed $700 daily and often exceed the money earned from catching low-priced herring. NOAA has waived the rule temporarily, saying it ran short of funds to administer the monitoring program.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented a revised federal mandate in 2020, even though Congress never gave the agency specific authority to launch such a program.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Shannon Bream and Bill Mears have conflicts of interest on the topics of Supreme Court, power of federal administrative state, Atlantic herring fishermen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Chevron deference, federal mandate.
The Supreme Court ruled against the author in a clean air case 40 years ago.
In two cases to be argued today, the court will rule on whether to radically change course and put unelected judges in the driver's seat for decisions that should be made by politically accountable officials.
Judges should exercise restraint when agencies flout clear intent of Congress and there is more than one reasonable way to interpret a law.
Unelected judges shouldn't impose their own policy views on federal agencies that serve the president and respond to Congress.
The Chevron deference doctrine has guided four decades of law, protecting essential role of federal agencies in writing rules required for laws passed by Congress.
These cases narrowly involve management of Atlantic herring fishery but stakes are much broader as they challenge Chevron deference doctrine that allows unelected lower court judges to make decisions based on personal preferences.
The result could be undermining safeguards public has counted on for decades and ability of federal agencies to administer laws passed by Congress.
Industry is asking the court to limit government's ability faithfully administer our laws and protect public from needless risk, siding with a few fishing boat owners.
The current Supreme Court has already handed down rulings in two recent cases that bow to industry interests and significantly weaken EPA's ability to protect clean air and water.
NRDC has argued hundreds of cases before federal courts, both lost and won based on Chevron deference.
Accuracy
Industry is asking the court to limit government's ability faithfully administer our laws and protect public from needless risk, siding with a few fishing boat owners.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that they lost their case before the Supreme Court in 1984 when arguing for clean air regulations. However, this statement is false as they actually won their case against Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council.
The article falsely states that David Doniger lost his case before the Supreme Court in 1984 when arguing for clean air regulations.
Fallacies
(90%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council as evidence for his argument. However, this case is not directly related to the current cases being argued before the court and should not be used as a basis for making decisions on these cases.
The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council as evidence for his argument. However, this case is not directly related to the current cases being argued before the court and should not be used as a basis for making decisions on these cases.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear political bias and is advocating for the maintenance of federal agency power. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with them by referring to them as 'big business interests' and 'fishing boat owners'. Additionally, the author implies that these individuals are trying to weaken government oversight functions which is not accurate.
The court got it right in 1984. It should stand by that ruling.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
David Doniger has a conflict of interest on the topics of Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), federal agencies and public health. He is an opinion contributor for The Hill which may have financial ties to these topics.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
David Doniger has conflicts of interest on the topics of Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), federal agencies and public health. He is an opinion contributor for The Hill which may have a bias towards certain political or ideological views.
David Doniger has been involved in legal battles against the EPA on behalf of environmental groups.
