1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:11,480 --> 00:00:14,880
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court will consider overturning a nearly forty year

3
00:00:14,960 --> 00:00:19,200
Speaker 1: old legal precedent called the Chevron Doctrine. It's given federal

4
00:00:19,239 --> 00:00:23,479
Speaker 1: regulators brought power to define their authority, and it's something

5
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:26,840
Speaker 1: conservatives have been pushing to get rid of for years,

6
00:00:27,240 --> 00:00:32,360
Speaker 1: saying it's empowered the administrative state. Several conservative justices have

7
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 1: soured on the doctrine, and Justice Neil Gorsich is one

8
00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:39,280
Speaker 1: of them. He was even questioned about Chevron during his

9
00:00:39,360 --> 00:00:44,160
Speaker 1: Senate confirmation hearings because he'd criticized the doctrine in an opinion,

10
00:00:44,760 --> 00:00:49,400
Speaker 1: saying it allowed quote, executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts

11
00:00:49,400 --> 00:00:51,960
Speaker 1: of core judicial and legislative power.

12
00:00:52,600 --> 00:00:55,400
Speaker 2: And I've raised some questions that arise in a case

13
00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:58,960
Speaker 2: that I actually had to deal with, how it would

14
00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:03,160
Speaker 2: impact people, real people, if agencies can change the meaning

15
00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:07,959
Speaker 2: of the law back and forth every four years, depending

16
00:01:08,040 --> 00:01:13,520
Speaker 2: upon the outcome of an election. I thought the judges

17
00:01:13,520 --> 00:01:17,520
Speaker 2: were supposed to say what the law is. I thought

18
00:01:18,120 --> 00:01:22,399
Speaker 2: that's what Justice Marshall said, And I thought the point

19
00:01:22,440 --> 00:01:25,559
Speaker 2: of having judges decide the law is because you wanted

20
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:29,240
Speaker 2: someone who's neutral and independent to say what the law means,

21
00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:32,480
Speaker 2: someone who doesn't have a dog in the hunt.

22
00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:37,039
Speaker 1: And next term the justices will consider a case testing

23
00:01:37,080 --> 00:01:40,120
Speaker 1: the doctrine. Joining me is an expert on the separation

24
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:43,839
Speaker 1: of powers, Harold Krant, a professor at the Chicago Kent

25
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:47,440
Speaker 1: College of Law. How will you explain just what the

26
00:01:47,520 --> 00:01:48,640
Speaker 1: Chevron doctrine is?

27
00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:52,760
Speaker 3: The ship on doctrine sets the tone or if you will,

28
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:57,960
Speaker 3: between the reviewing court and the agency which is promulgated

29
00:01:58,040 --> 00:02:02,720
Speaker 3: rule or conducted into judicated to settle rights between the

30
00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:08,800
Speaker 3: government and either individuals or regulated businesses. And oftentimes agencies

31
00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:12,919
Speaker 3: engage in very complicated decision making, dealing with questions about

32
00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:16,400
Speaker 3: kinds of nuclear discharge, how to gauge it, questions about

33
00:02:16,520 --> 00:02:21,840
Speaker 3: hearing rights or disabled, what kind of drugs should be regulated,

34
00:02:22,040 --> 00:02:24,600
Speaker 3: how do we know if it's safe. There's so many

35
00:02:24,639 --> 00:02:28,440
Speaker 3: areas in which regulators have to make decisions, and Congress

36
00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:32,400
Speaker 3: can't foresee all of the details. Congress therefore gives of

37
00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:36,400
Speaker 3: why leash to agencies or leeway to the agency to

38
00:02:36,600 --> 00:02:40,720
Speaker 3: flesh out those regulations. As social conditions and indeed, as

39
00:02:40,840 --> 00:02:45,760
Speaker 3: political conditions change subject to the oversight of the President,

40
00:02:46,280 --> 00:02:49,200
Speaker 3: and that's the kind of standard. But the Court is

41
00:02:49,200 --> 00:02:52,440
Speaker 3: fighting back. The Court is thought that agencies shouldn't have

42
00:02:52,520 --> 00:02:55,959
Speaker 3: this power. It's okay if Congress cuts the details itself,

43
00:02:56,240 --> 00:02:59,880
Speaker 3: but the Court doesn't want agencies to have the ability

44
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:04,679
Speaker 3: to reinterpret their own enacting statues, to reinterpret and refashion

45
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:08,960
Speaker 3: rules as these conditions change. And therefore they're trying to

46
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:12,000
Speaker 3: straight jacket administrative agency power.

47
00:03:12,200 --> 00:03:15,440
Speaker 1: And the doctrine has sort of a two step approach.

48
00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:19,320
Speaker 3: The Chevron doctrine is a two step doctrine which first

49
00:03:19,400 --> 00:03:23,359
Speaker 3: asked if Congress has clearly specified what the agency should do,

50
00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:25,760
Speaker 3: and if it does, then the Court will just either

51
00:03:25,840 --> 00:03:30,400
Speaker 3: say agency acted appropriately or not. But if there is ambiguity,

52
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:34,320
Speaker 3: and there's almost always ambiguity, then the doctrine suggests that

53
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:37,840
Speaker 3: the Court will agree to any kind of reasonable interpretation

54
00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:41,800
Speaker 3: of the satutory language that the agency has reached. And

55
00:03:41,840 --> 00:03:44,600
Speaker 3: so they were giving deference, in other words, to agencies

56
00:03:44,600 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 3: because the agencies are more expert, they have more experience

57
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 3: in the areas of pollution, of drug safety, of labor

58
00:03:51,840 --> 00:03:55,160
Speaker 3: management relations, and therefore they should be the ones to

59
00:03:55,200 --> 00:03:58,880
Speaker 3: decide the issue as long as they're acting reasonably. That's

60
00:03:58,880 --> 00:04:03,040
Speaker 3: this sort of ructure of Chevron. But the Court, i think,

61
00:04:03,400 --> 00:04:07,200
Speaker 3: has battled back because it thinks that it's not right

62
00:04:07,320 --> 00:04:10,840
Speaker 3: for agencies to share with the Court the power to

63
00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:15,480
Speaker 3: interpret congressional language. The Court thinks it's their own prerogative

64
00:04:15,680 --> 00:04:19,919
Speaker 3: to interpret what Congress says, and therefore to share it

65
00:04:19,960 --> 00:04:24,599
Speaker 3: with agencies. By giving this leeway to reasonable agency interpretation

66
00:04:24,760 --> 00:04:28,600
Speaker 3: of satutory language would be to limit their own power. So,

67
00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:32,920
Speaker 3: in some ways, Chevron is an ideological war that the

68
00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:38,040
Speaker 3: Court is waging in order to affirm its own superiority

69
00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:40,760
Speaker 3: in terms of satutory interpretation.

70
00:04:41,520 --> 00:04:45,200
Speaker 1: The Court has chipped away at Chevron, but is this

71
00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:47,760
Speaker 1: the first direct challenge to it?

72
00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:51,919
Speaker 3: So the Court has not upheld a case on the

73
00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:56,200
Speaker 3: basis of the Chevron doctrine for over six years. Lower courts, however,

74
00:04:56,480 --> 00:05:00,400
Speaker 3: have continuously applied Chevron. But the Court has a acasionally

75
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:04,120
Speaker 3: asked whether the Chevron doctrine should be not just limited,

76
00:05:04,200 --> 00:05:07,320
Speaker 3: which it has done, but whether it should be overruled

77
00:05:07,520 --> 00:05:09,880
Speaker 3: in its entirety. And this case may or may not

78
00:05:09,920 --> 00:05:12,520
Speaker 3: be the right vehicle. In this case, there's a very

79
00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:16,160
Speaker 3: narrow question has to do with a herring fishing industry

80
00:05:16,520 --> 00:05:21,120
Speaker 3: about whether the industry itself has to pay for agency observers.

81
00:05:21,480 --> 00:05:25,880
Speaker 3: And agency observers are unquestionably permitted under the statutory scheme

82
00:05:26,279 --> 00:05:30,240
Speaker 3: to make sure that the fishing boats conserve resources, don't overfish,

83
00:05:30,600 --> 00:05:33,880
Speaker 3: don't take too small fish, et cetera. So the questions

84
00:05:33,880 --> 00:05:35,880
Speaker 3: that they have to pay for it. Maybe it's implicit

85
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:38,760
Speaker 3: in the statute, but it's not explicit. And the Court

86
00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:41,480
Speaker 3: has taken two questions on the case. One is whether

87
00:05:41,520 --> 00:05:45,000
Speaker 3: the Chevron doctrine should be overruled in its entirety, and

88
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:48,000
Speaker 3: the second is whether the fact that there is no

89
00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:53,080
Speaker 3: explicit power given by Congress to the agency to make

90
00:05:53,160 --> 00:05:56,280
Speaker 3: the private fishing industry pay for observers, whether the fact

91
00:05:56,279 --> 00:06:00,640
Speaker 3: that there's congressional silence should be a reason to deprive

92
00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:05,120
Speaker 3: the agency of the power to determine that the fishing

93
00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:08,920
Speaker 3: industry should pay for these observers. So on the second question,

94
00:06:09,120 --> 00:06:12,919
Speaker 3: the court would be just narrowing Chevron even more. The

95
00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:17,200
Speaker 3: idea would be agency can still interpret what the statute says,

96
00:06:17,320 --> 00:06:20,960
Speaker 3: but if the statute doesn't give a power explicitly, then

97
00:06:21,279 --> 00:06:23,960
Speaker 3: Chevron would not be applied, and so that would be

98
00:06:23,960 --> 00:06:28,760
Speaker 3: another way to whittle down the number of circumstances in

99
00:06:28,800 --> 00:06:31,479
Speaker 3: which agency interpretations would be deferred to.

100
00:06:32,000 --> 00:06:33,760
Speaker 1: There isn't a split in the circuits there.

101
00:06:34,160 --> 00:06:36,400
Speaker 3: This case is all about the Supreme Court. And again,

102
00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:39,240
Speaker 3: I think the challenge of Chevron, I don't think it

103
00:06:39,279 --> 00:06:41,559
Speaker 3: makes that big of a difference in terms of number

104
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:44,440
Speaker 3: of cases the agency's win or lose. But it's a

105
00:06:44,520 --> 00:06:47,680
Speaker 3: thorn in the Court's side because the Court thinks that

106
00:06:47,760 --> 00:06:52,040
Speaker 3: they have the superiority in terms of interpreting statutes, and

107
00:06:52,080 --> 00:06:56,440
Speaker 3: to publicly announce that agencies should have a role in

108
00:06:56,520 --> 00:07:00,200
Speaker 3: interpreting language of Congress as well as they do, it's

109
00:07:00,240 --> 00:07:02,920
Speaker 3: sort of an insult to the Court. To the Court,

110
00:07:02,920 --> 00:07:06,560
Speaker 3: I think wants to wipe this insult away. But what

111
00:07:06,600 --> 00:07:09,200
Speaker 3: I think is interesting is to think about what happened

112
00:07:09,240 --> 00:07:13,360
Speaker 3: before Chevron. And that's something that often commentators aren't really

113
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:17,560
Speaker 3: discussing because before Chevron, what courts would do would say,

114
00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:21,320
Speaker 3: you know, this is a kind of complicated agency issue.

115
00:07:21,560 --> 00:07:24,840
Speaker 3: Agencies have more expertise than we do. We'll defer to agency.

116
00:07:24,920 --> 00:07:28,880
Speaker 3: And there was this sort of patchwork of deference that

117
00:07:29,240 --> 00:07:32,360
Speaker 3: grew up in mongst courts that say, well, in this case,

118
00:07:32,840 --> 00:07:35,840
Speaker 3: we're not sure it's kind of murky. There's a lot

119
00:07:35,880 --> 00:07:39,200
Speaker 3: of expertise involved. We'll defer to the agency. And what

120
00:07:39,320 --> 00:07:42,080
Speaker 3: Chevron did was to try to take this kind of

121
00:07:42,760 --> 00:07:47,200
Speaker 3: scheme of uncertain difference and try to give it a

122
00:07:47,320 --> 00:07:53,120
Speaker 3: uniform two step package which would then unify and systematize

123
00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:58,120
Speaker 3: difference across the country. So, even if Chevron is wiped out,

124
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:01,760
Speaker 3: I think over time, which would say, you know, I

125
00:08:01,760 --> 00:08:05,880
Speaker 3: don't really know about nuclear discharge. What the agency did

126
00:08:05,880 --> 00:08:09,680
Speaker 3: here there is technical, it seems pretty minor. Let's defer

127
00:08:09,840 --> 00:08:14,600
Speaker 3: to the agency because who knows what Congress really intended

128
00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:17,720
Speaker 3: and the agency is familiar with it. The agency is

129
00:08:18,040 --> 00:08:21,280
Speaker 3: applying the statute, It has the expertise, it knows what

130
00:08:21,360 --> 00:08:24,240
Speaker 3: Congress meant by that vague language better than we do.

131
00:08:24,400 --> 00:08:27,040
Speaker 3: So I think that over time, even if the court

132
00:08:27,080 --> 00:08:30,920
Speaker 3: scuttles Chevron, it's not going to make a dramatic difference.

133
00:08:31,280 --> 00:08:34,120
Speaker 3: And the other side of the coin, if the court

134
00:08:34,240 --> 00:08:37,000
Speaker 3: really cares about an issue, and courts, you know, do

135
00:08:37,160 --> 00:08:40,720
Speaker 3: about the vaccine mandate for instance, or about carbon discharge,

136
00:08:41,000 --> 00:08:43,880
Speaker 3: the Court's going to come up with a decision as

137
00:08:43,920 --> 00:08:47,480
Speaker 3: to what the statute means. Irrespective of whether Chevron applies

138
00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:49,959
Speaker 3: or not. And we've seen many instances of that. So

139
00:08:50,240 --> 00:08:54,480
Speaker 3: even Chevron gives a court enough leeway to step in

140
00:08:54,559 --> 00:08:58,200
Speaker 3: and say that an agency interpretation is not reasonable, or

141
00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:02,560
Speaker 3: the congressional language was clear enough to make sure that

142
00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:04,920
Speaker 3: they end up with the result that they like. So

143
00:09:05,280 --> 00:09:10,280
Speaker 3: my own view is that in cases that courts aren't

144
00:09:10,520 --> 00:09:14,960
Speaker 3: wrapped up in politically or ideologically, they'll defer to agencies,

145
00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:19,319
Speaker 3: and in cases where they do care ideologically or politically,

146
00:09:19,679 --> 00:09:22,480
Speaker 3: then they'll find some kind of way to rule for

147
00:09:22,640 --> 00:09:26,520
Speaker 3: against the agency, depending upon their own leanings and their

148
00:09:26,559 --> 00:09:29,560
Speaker 3: own political views. So if they get rid of Chevron,

149
00:09:29,559 --> 00:09:31,400
Speaker 3: it will make a little bit of a difference, but

150
00:09:31,520 --> 00:09:34,480
Speaker 3: I don't think it'll be as dramatic as some people think.

151
00:09:35,320 --> 00:09:37,800
Speaker 1: Do you think that they intend to get rid of Chevron?

152
00:09:37,880 --> 00:09:42,079
Speaker 1: Because the justices didn't have to take this case, there's

153
00:09:42,120 --> 00:09:45,840
Speaker 1: no split in the circuits. The Administration said the fishery

154
00:09:45,920 --> 00:09:50,760
Speaker 1: dispute has no practical importance now because the monitoring program

155
00:09:50,840 --> 00:09:54,440
Speaker 1: is on hold, and the court took an unusually long

156
00:09:54,520 --> 00:09:57,240
Speaker 1: time to decide how to handle the case, it scheduled

157
00:09:57,240 --> 00:10:00,000
Speaker 1: it for potential discussion at five private conferences.

158
00:10:00,760 --> 00:10:02,679
Speaker 3: This case is not that important. It has to do

159
00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:05,440
Speaker 3: with just the herring fishing industry, and it has to

160
00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:08,319
Speaker 3: do with whether the industry has to pay for monitors.

161
00:10:08,440 --> 00:10:11,000
Speaker 3: Congress Crude stead the monitors are permitted, and that the

162
00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:13,760
Speaker 3: agency has the power to impose the monitoring system to

163
00:10:13,760 --> 00:10:16,880
Speaker 3: conserve fishing resources. So that's not even a question. So

164
00:10:16,920 --> 00:10:19,360
Speaker 3: this is not like a major questions case. This is

165
00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:23,440
Speaker 3: a minor regulatory issue about who pays. And the only

166
00:10:23,440 --> 00:10:26,080
Speaker 3: reason the Court took this case is because they wanted

167
00:10:26,120 --> 00:10:29,080
Speaker 3: some kind of context in which they could decide again

168
00:10:29,360 --> 00:10:32,920
Speaker 3: whether to scuttle Chevron, to interer it completely, or whether

169
00:10:32,960 --> 00:10:35,160
Speaker 3: it to limit it even more than it has been

170
00:10:35,520 --> 00:10:38,320
Speaker 3: in the prior ten years. Indeed, the fact that Justice

171
00:10:38,440 --> 00:10:41,840
Speaker 3: Jackson has recused from the case is even more sort

172
00:10:41,840 --> 00:10:44,880
Speaker 3: of fishy, so to speak, because they could have easily

173
00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:48,920
Speaker 3: taken a case in which all nine justices could have participated.

174
00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:53,880
Speaker 1: Presidents of both parties have leaned on the Chevron doctrine,

175
00:10:54,440 --> 00:11:00,280
Speaker 1: although democratic administrations perhaps relied more heavily using it to

176
00:11:00,440 --> 00:11:05,280
Speaker 1: justify mandates on energy, the environment, and the workplace. So

177
00:11:05,320 --> 00:11:09,640
Speaker 1: I'd like you to explain why conservatives, the critics of

178
00:11:09,679 --> 00:11:12,880
Speaker 1: big government or the administrative state or executive power I

179
00:11:12,880 --> 00:11:16,680
Speaker 1: think they're all the same, almost have had their eyes

180
00:11:16,760 --> 00:11:18,360
Speaker 1: on destroying Chevron.

181
00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:21,240
Speaker 3: Well, to take a step back, Chevron grew in the

182
00:11:21,240 --> 00:11:24,160
Speaker 3: midst of the Reagan administration, and the Reagan administration was

183
00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:28,000
Speaker 3: engaging in somewhat of a radical deregulation at the time,

184
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:33,120
Speaker 3: and the Republicans supported Chevron because they supported the regulatory

185
00:11:33,160 --> 00:11:36,000
Speaker 3: regime that the Reagan administration was forwarding. And it was

186
00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:40,120
Speaker 3: only during the Obama administration when Republicans then began to

187
00:11:40,200 --> 00:11:45,160
Speaker 3: attack Chevron because they saw that Chevron helped the Obama's

188
00:11:45,160 --> 00:11:50,000
Speaker 3: administration's effort in Obamacare, effort in reforming the welfare system,

189
00:11:50,440 --> 00:11:54,240
Speaker 3: that they thought that having stricter judicial controls on the

190
00:11:54,240 --> 00:11:59,880
Speaker 3: administration would be more beneficial to their political interests. So Chef,

191
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:03,360
Speaker 3: I'd really neutral. It can help administrations, whether the Republican

192
00:12:03,600 --> 00:12:08,080
Speaker 3: or Democratic. It just suggests a reality of our political system,

193
00:12:08,280 --> 00:12:11,520
Speaker 3: which is Congress doesn't like to deal with details. There's

194
00:12:11,520 --> 00:12:14,160
Speaker 3: a lot of gridlock in Congress. But even aside from

195
00:12:14,160 --> 00:12:17,400
Speaker 3: the gridlock, Congress looks at some issues, but it prefers

196
00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:20,760
Speaker 3: only to look at some issues, and it doesn't want

197
00:12:20,760 --> 00:12:24,000
Speaker 3: to get into details of vaccines, the details of even

198
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:29,079
Speaker 3: the herring industry, not to mention pollution, labor management relations,

199
00:12:29,120 --> 00:12:32,560
Speaker 3: and so much more. And so for years Congress has

200
00:12:32,600 --> 00:12:35,840
Speaker 3: decided that it's better to have agencies take the first

201
00:12:35,880 --> 00:12:39,240
Speaker 3: crack at many of those important issues, and it sits

202
00:12:39,320 --> 00:12:42,319
Speaker 3: back and only gets involved if they are convinced that

203
00:12:42,360 --> 00:12:45,240
Speaker 3: the agencies have messed up. That's been a reality of

204
00:12:45,280 --> 00:12:49,160
Speaker 3: our governance now for generations. And it is true that

205
00:12:49,400 --> 00:12:52,760
Speaker 3: back in the seventeen nineties there were very few agencies.

206
00:12:52,800 --> 00:12:56,880
Speaker 3: There were some, and so Congress did grapple with more details,

207
00:12:56,880 --> 00:12:59,720
Speaker 3: more specifically, and that was the main way we had rules.

208
00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:03,120
Speaker 3: Over time, is life has become so much more complicated

209
00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:07,000
Speaker 3: and our society has grown so much that Congress has

210
00:13:07,040 --> 00:13:10,800
Speaker 3: been more content to issue some major rules but allow

211
00:13:10,960 --> 00:13:13,720
Speaker 3: the agencies to flesh them out and to adjust and

212
00:13:13,760 --> 00:13:17,640
Speaker 3: adapt as conditions change. So I don't think Chevron itself

213
00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:20,440
Speaker 3: is ideological, but it does do is it reflects the

214
00:13:20,480 --> 00:13:23,600
Speaker 3: fact that Congress has willingly given up the reins of

215
00:13:23,640 --> 00:13:26,760
Speaker 3: its own authority to the agencies. And someone who wants

216
00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:29,600
Speaker 3: to turn back the clock to seventeen eighty nine and

217
00:13:29,640 --> 00:13:33,679
Speaker 3: to someone who doesn't believe that agencies have any kind

218
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:38,240
Speaker 3: of special role in interpreting what Congress intended. That's an assault.

219
00:13:38,280 --> 00:13:41,040
Speaker 3: And so I think what the Court is upset about

220
00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:45,240
Speaker 3: in Chevron isn't so much the view that agencies are liberal.

221
00:13:45,640 --> 00:13:48,119
Speaker 3: It's just that they want a different kind of society.

222
00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:52,200
Speaker 3: And Chevron is a reflection of the fact that we

223
00:13:52,320 --> 00:13:56,840
Speaker 3: have a society that's changed and where agencies are both

224
00:13:56,880 --> 00:14:00,840
Speaker 3: Republican and democratic. Administrations wield a great deal of power

225
00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:05,640
Speaker 3: by necessity and also because Congress simply hasn't tackled although

226
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:09,800
Speaker 3: those complex issues dealing with climate change, dealing with vaccines,

227
00:14:10,160 --> 00:14:12,960
Speaker 3: dealing with labor management policy, and so much more.

228
00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:17,760
Speaker 1: If they do away with Chevron, that's going to put

229
00:14:17,920 --> 00:14:24,320
Speaker 1: more bonus on Congress to directly tackle policy issues and Congress.

230
00:14:25,280 --> 00:14:29,320
Speaker 1: Congress has not been so adept in the last years

231
00:14:29,600 --> 00:14:30,360
Speaker 1: at doing that.

232
00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:34,080
Speaker 3: Absolutely correct, I think that doing way with Chevron and

233
00:14:34,160 --> 00:14:38,480
Speaker 3: limiting deference to agencies pushes the ball back in Congress's lap,

234
00:14:38,720 --> 00:14:40,680
Speaker 3: and the question is what will Congress do with it.

235
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:44,120
Speaker 3: We have seen Congress over the years be more and

236
00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:49,080
Speaker 3: more willing to give up power to agencies because they're partisan,

237
00:14:49,440 --> 00:14:53,760
Speaker 3: because they're more involved in re election campaigns, whatever the

238
00:14:53,840 --> 00:14:57,800
Speaker 3: issue may be. And I am not convinced that doing

239
00:14:57,800 --> 00:15:01,640
Speaker 3: away with Chevron will affect actively prod Congress to be

240
00:15:01,680 --> 00:15:05,720
Speaker 3: more responsible and to actually do more in terms of legislating.

241
00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:08,720
Speaker 3: If you're optimistic, maybe that's what the Court is trying

242
00:15:08,760 --> 00:15:12,680
Speaker 3: to get Congress to do, and if so, it's a

243
00:15:12,720 --> 00:15:14,560
Speaker 3: noble effort, But I'm not sure it's a winning effort.

244
00:15:14,800 --> 00:15:18,680
Speaker 3: And the predicament that our country may phase is if

245
00:15:19,040 --> 00:15:22,960
Speaker 3: agencies have much less authority and Congress doesn't pick up

246
00:15:23,000 --> 00:15:27,160
Speaker 3: the slack and become more active, we may end up

247
00:15:27,200 --> 00:15:30,360
Speaker 3: in a worse situation than we are today. Rather have

248
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:34,560
Speaker 3: agency action supervised by the Chief executive and reflecting the

249
00:15:34,600 --> 00:15:38,560
Speaker 3: Chief executive's policy preferences, then we'd rather have no kind

250
00:15:38,720 --> 00:15:40,160
Speaker 3: of guidance whatsoever.

251
00:15:40,640 --> 00:15:44,680
Speaker 1: If Congress doesn't step in. Does that mean the courts

252
00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:47,560
Speaker 1: will have more power without Chevron?

253
00:15:48,200 --> 00:15:52,440
Speaker 3: Well, clearly, in the short run, the move to dump

254
00:15:52,640 --> 00:15:56,600
Speaker 3: Chevron gives more power to the courts because courts will

255
00:15:56,600 --> 00:16:02,000
Speaker 3: not be sharing the authority to interpret staff with agencies.

256
00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:04,960
Speaker 3: They will do it on their own. And of course,

257
00:16:05,080 --> 00:16:09,560
Speaker 3: if Congress doesn't change the terms of these broad open

258
00:16:09,920 --> 00:16:13,680
Speaker 3: statues that they've already delegated to agencies such as the

259
00:16:13,720 --> 00:16:16,880
Speaker 3: Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, and so much more.

260
00:16:17,240 --> 00:16:20,120
Speaker 3: Then it's up to courts to step in to say

261
00:16:20,160 --> 00:16:24,800
Speaker 3: whether these agencies have read these broad statues correctly or not.

262
00:16:25,200 --> 00:16:28,200
Speaker 3: So in the short one, clearly the courts would get

263
00:16:28,240 --> 00:16:30,840
Speaker 3: more power. The question is in the long run whether

264
00:16:31,360 --> 00:16:35,360
Speaker 3: Congress would take up the dialogue and legislate more and

265
00:16:35,440 --> 00:16:39,680
Speaker 3: legislate more carefully with specific language, which would then take

266
00:16:39,680 --> 00:16:42,280
Speaker 3: away power from the courts, because it would then be

267
00:16:42,680 --> 00:16:45,800
Speaker 3: Congress which would be making all of those hard decisions

268
00:16:45,840 --> 00:16:50,800
Speaker 3: about what kind of anti pollution measures are appropriate, what

269
00:16:50,880 --> 00:16:54,040
Speaker 3: kind of phishing conservation issues are appropriated, as in this

270
00:16:54,120 --> 00:16:58,320
Speaker 3: particular hearing controversy, you know what kind of insecticides can

271
00:16:58,360 --> 00:17:01,160
Speaker 3: be used in different kind of program, and what kind

272
00:17:01,200 --> 00:17:04,680
Speaker 3: of reimbursements can be used under Obamacare. Congress hasn't wanted

273
00:17:04,720 --> 00:17:08,160
Speaker 3: to insert those kind of details in legislation, and it's

274
00:17:08,160 --> 00:17:10,840
Speaker 3: hard to do that, and so Congress has chosen not to.

275
00:17:10,960 --> 00:17:16,160
Speaker 3: But perhaps if the Court decides to knock down Chevron,

276
00:17:16,440 --> 00:17:18,359
Speaker 3: there will be at least a little more incentive for

277
00:17:18,440 --> 00:17:22,080
Speaker 3: Congress to do its job and legislate more and legislate

278
00:17:22,080 --> 00:17:23,040
Speaker 3: more carefully.

279
00:17:23,280 --> 00:17:26,840
Speaker 1: Just to clarify the Court could decide this case without

280
00:17:27,320 --> 00:17:28,440
Speaker 1: knocking out Chevron.

281
00:17:28,960 --> 00:17:30,760
Speaker 3: One of the issues that the Court said that it

282
00:17:30,800 --> 00:17:35,560
Speaker 3: will consider is whether, in the face of congressional silence,

283
00:17:35,920 --> 00:17:40,359
Speaker 3: can an agency power ever be implied and as applied

284
00:17:40,440 --> 00:17:44,239
Speaker 3: to this case. Congress clearly said that the agency has

285
00:17:44,280 --> 00:17:49,360
Speaker 3: the power to install monitors on ships to protect against

286
00:17:49,480 --> 00:17:53,840
Speaker 3: over phishing, but it didn't say clearly whether the agency

287
00:17:53,880 --> 00:17:58,280
Speaker 3: had the power to require the hering industry to pay

288
00:17:58,320 --> 00:18:01,679
Speaker 3: for the observers themselves. So they could hold that you

289
00:18:01,720 --> 00:18:05,960
Speaker 3: can never imply a duty or a power from silence,

290
00:18:06,320 --> 00:18:09,440
Speaker 3: and this power would be whether or not the agency

291
00:18:09,680 --> 00:18:12,800
Speaker 3: can require the private industry to pay for the observers.

292
00:18:13,080 --> 00:18:17,040
Speaker 3: So if the Court limits its holding to that ground,

293
00:18:17,440 --> 00:18:21,240
Speaker 3: it would just be another limitation of when Chevron could

294
00:18:21,240 --> 00:18:23,760
Speaker 3: be applied. Chevron could still be applied to questions what

295
00:18:23,800 --> 00:18:26,560
Speaker 3: does a vessel mean? For instance, what does herring mean?

296
00:18:26,840 --> 00:18:30,000
Speaker 3: Those kinds of terms could still be subject to Chevron deference,

297
00:18:30,280 --> 00:18:33,679
Speaker 3: But you could never imply a power that wasn't explicitly

298
00:18:33,720 --> 00:18:35,440
Speaker 3: given in the statue, And.

299
00:18:35,400 --> 00:18:37,400
Speaker 1: We'll have to wait until next term to find out.

300
00:18:37,560 --> 00:18:40,880
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor Harrald Krant of the Chicago,

301
00:18:40,960 --> 00:18:43,800
Speaker 1: Kent College of Law. And that's it for this edition

302
00:18:43,840 --> 00:18:46,479
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

303
00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:49,639
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

304
00:18:49,680 --> 00:18:53,760
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

305
00:18:53,920 --> 00:18:58,199
Speaker 1: dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And remember

306
00:18:58,200 --> 00:19:01,160
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

307
00:19:01,200 --> 00:19:04,680
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

308
00:19:04,760 --> 00:19:05,960
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg