{"id":335149,"date":"2024-06-29T09:04:06","date_gmt":"2024-06-29T07:04:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335149"},"modified":"2024-06-29T09:04:08","modified_gmt":"2024-06-29T07:04:08","slug":"rep-harriet-hageman-the-supreme-courts-latest-chevron-ruling-is-a-big-win-for-america-whats-next","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335149","title":{"rendered":"REP. HARRIET HAGEMAN: The Supreme Court\u2019s Latest Chevron Ruling Is a Big Win for America \u2014 What\u2019s Next?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Caller<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By REP. HARRIET HAGEMAN<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONTRIBUTOR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For two generations the Chevron Doctrine has given federal agencies an unfair advantage, outsized authority and unconstitutional power in interpreting statutes and issuing rules. Friday, the Supreme Court righted this wrong. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carved into the stone above the Supreme Court\u2019s grand entrance is the phrase \u201cEqual Justice Under Law.\u201d But for as long as Chevron deference has existed, the courts have favored the desires, opinions and agendas of unelected bureaucrats, while placing unfair burdens on the American people. Established in the 1984 case Chevron v. NRDC<\/em>, this doctrine instructs courts to defer to federal agencies\u2019 interpretations of laws where the underlying statute is, according to the agencies themselves, ambiguous or even silent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a career Constitutional law and water rights attorney, I\u2019ve seen first-hand how Chevron deference tips the scales of justice against the American people and in favor of the federal government. In short, the Judiciary surrendered its duty to interpret and apply the law for nearly 40 years, blindly trusting agencies to interpret the scope of their own power and what the law means. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve spent decades fighting against Chevron deference in my role as a private attorney and while working as Senior Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens against unlawful regulatory overreach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chevron deference strips authority from our courts and emboldens federal agencies to exceed and abuse their congressionally designated powers. While the best antidote for an oppressive, overbearing executive branch is a strong Congress, the decision by the Supreme Court to end Chevron deference is a huge step towards restoring our constitutional freedoms and separation of powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There has been much handwringing over this decision by those who support giving the administrative state unlimited power. How will the government function? How will legislators and courts keep up with all this extra work? How will anyone know what a bill or statute means? We need the \u201cexperts\u201d to decide!  Let\u2019s examine this hysteria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For roughly two centuries our federal government functioned \u2013 and I might argue functioned better \u2013 without relying on the Chevron Doctrine. Congress passed laws; agencies enforced them and if adjustments were needed, then Congress could pass or repeal legislation to fix particular issues, or our courts would adjudicate them. While not even the greatest Congress can avoid some ambiguity when writing laws, more carefully thought out and thoroughly researched work can reduce it. Courts have always interpreted the meaning of laws \u2013 and being required to \u201cdefer\u201d to an agency\u2019s view simply because it could be deemed \u201creasonable\u201d should be offensive to judges everywhere. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congress has been ceding its legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats for far too long. Administrative rule-making, which the citizens and businesses must adhere to, has far outpaced actual lawmaking in America. The Biden administration issued 4,429<\/a> final rules in 2021. That number was 3,168<\/a> the following year. Over the same period, Congress passed only 365<\/a> bills that became law. This discrepancy is a stunning reality check \u2013 it has been federal bureaucrats, not your elected representatives, that have been legislating, and not one of them is accountable to you. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One more word about being able to live without all these government regulations \u2013 the federal government has grown far too large and all-encompassing over the last fifty years. Ronald Reagan famously (and rightfully) said that man is not free unless government is limited. Today we have roughly 438 federal agencies, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute calculates the annual hidden cost of regulation at $2.1 trillion, with no signs of slowing. Maybe we all could get by with a few less rules from the feds and actually limit their power as intended by the Constitution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As it relates to the courts, they too will be able to survive in a post Chevron world. Without deference, courts would adhere to traditional and long-standing statutory interpretation to determine Congressional intent. Chief Justice Roberts recently argued that the impact to the Supreme Court would be insignificant and noted that they haven\u2019t relied on Chevron in years. At the lower court level, without having Chevron to fall back on, individuals challenging agency actions will surely fare better. It is possible that agencies may actually be more cautious in their rule-making if they understand that they would face a more level playing field when challenged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court decision on Chevron deference doesn\u2019t harm government; it drags government one step closer to functioning within the framework of the separation of powers that our founders intended. Congressmembers can return to being legislators, the executive branch can be confined to simply enacting laws and the courts will be the final arbiters of any discrepancies. Most importantly, the citizens that must live under the laws and rules enacted will have a real chance to defend themselves against rules they deem as unfair, without the courts having to defer to \u201creasonable\u201d interpretations that may or may not be correct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The end of Chevron deference is the return to a system of government more aligned with our Constitutional Republic (despite the fact that CNN apparently doesn\u2019t know what that means).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congresswoman Harriet Hageman is serving her first term as Wyoming\u2019s at-large Member in the U.S. House of Representatives. She serves on the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government and the Committee on Natural Resources.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For two generations the Chevron Doctrine has given federal agencies an unfair advantage, outsized authority and unconstitutional power in interpreting statutes and issuing rules. Friday, the Supreme Court righted this wrong.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":335152,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691820003,691829464,691829465,691818670],"class_list":{"0":"post-335149","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-chevron","9":"tag-harriet-hageman","10":"tag-new-civil-liberties-alliance-ncla","11":"tag-supreme-court","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0supreme-court-1200x630-1-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1pbD","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":255607,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255607","url_meta":{"origin":335149,"position":0},"title":"\u201cChevron Deference\u201d comes under fire from SCOTUS","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In what could be a potential big win for conservatives, the practice of \u201cChevron deference\u201d is to be targeted by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in an upcoming court case for the next SCOTUS session.","rel":"","context":"In \"Chevron deference\"","block_context":{"text":"Chevron deference","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=chevron-deference"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00ep-110-ace-act-acb-gun-environment-rulings-spell-good-news-for-scotus.jpg?fit=1200%2C782&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00ep-110-ace-act-acb-gun-environment-rulings-spell-good-news-for-scotus.jpg?fit=1200%2C782&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00ep-110-ace-act-acb-gun-environment-rulings-spell-good-news-for-scotus.jpg?fit=1200%2C782&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00ep-110-ace-act-acb-gun-environment-rulings-spell-good-news-for-scotus.jpg?fit=1200%2C782&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00ep-110-ace-act-acb-gun-environment-rulings-spell-good-news-for-scotus.jpg?fit=1200%2C782&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257899,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=257899","url_meta":{"origin":335149,"position":1},"title":"Small fish could mean big trouble for Feds","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"17\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In agreeing to review a far-reaching legal precedent laid down in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court May 2 opened the door to curtailing federal regulatory agencies\u2019 power to decide for themselves what Congress intended when passing vaguely worded legislation.","rel":"","context":"In \"Administrative Regulatory State\"","block_context":{"text":"Administrative Regulatory State","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=administrative-regulatory-state"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Fisheries-petition-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Fisheries-petition-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Fisheries-petition-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Fisheries-petition-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Fisheries-petition-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425357,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425357","url_meta":{"origin":335149,"position":2},"title":"Supreme Court showdown could unleash litigation war on U.S. energy companies","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Politicians and trial lawyers in Louisiana are hoping to use the home-field advantage of state courts to shake down oil and gas companies. The alleged misdeed: contributing to coastal erosion and damaging wetlands while producing aviation fuel for the U.S. military during World War II.","rel":"","context":"In \"American Tort Reform Association\"","block_context":{"text":"American Tort Reform Association","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=american-tort-reform-association"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Gavel-graph-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C672&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Gavel-graph-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C672&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Gavel-graph-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C672&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Gavel-graph-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C672&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Gavel-graph-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C672&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283477,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=283477","url_meta":{"origin":335149,"position":3},"title":"The Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s Reality Check on Trudeau\u2019s Climate Impact Act","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Canada-Court-Chaimber Canada\u2019s natural resources industries won a victory in the Supreme Court of Canada. Alberta_Oil_Industry_Facts From Watts Up With That? In a recent ruling that sent shockwaves through the corridors of Canadian power, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a blow to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau\u2019s environmental aspirations. The court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Canada\"","block_context":{"text":"Canada","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=canada"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440411,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440411","url_meta":{"origin":335149,"position":4},"title":"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must act to restore real science to judicial oversight","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Judges are not scientists, and the Supreme Court has never claimed they should resolve scientific debates. Their role is procedural and evidentiary: to demand that proffered \u201cscience\u201d in court meets basic standards of reliability before it influences outcomes in toxic torts, regulatory challenges, or mass litigation. Post-Loper Bright, this gatekeeping\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cScientific consensus\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cScientific consensus\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=scientific-consensus-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":427608,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=427608","url_meta":{"origin":335149,"position":5},"title":"Climate alarmists howl after EPA rescinds \u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"23\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally\u00a0rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding\u00a0(EF) \u2013 the Obama era EPA ruling that claimed carbon dioxide and other \u201cgreenhouse gas\u201d (GHG) emissions \u201cendanger\u201d human health and welfare. Within minutes, climate alarmists challenged it in court.","rel":"","context":"In \"2009 Endangerment Finding (EF)\"","block_context":{"text":"2009 Endangerment Finding (EF)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=2009-endangerment-finding-ef"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-12-184328.png?fit=1033%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=335149"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335149\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":335153,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335149\/revisions\/335153"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/335152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=335149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=335149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=335149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}