Supreme Court, Over Thomas/Gorsuch Dissent, Passes Up Chance to Rein in Administrative State

More than seven decades ago, litigation over the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 left courts with an embarrassing black eye that would affect decisions for decades. InBowles v. Seminole Rock& Sand Co.(1945), the Supreme Court decided to give controlling deference to administrative agencies ’ interpretations of their own regulations. InAuer v. Robbins (1997), the Court unanimously doubled down onSeminole Rock. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia noted in a2013 case when it seems he began having a change of heart, “[f]or decades, and for no good reason, [courts] have been giving agencies the authority to say what their rules mean.”These “interpretations,” for which there are no standardized processes, can come in informal contexts, as was the case inGarco Construction v. Speer, where the government ’s deferred to “interpretation” that didn’t come around until litigation was well underway. This year, the Supreme Court had a golden opportunity to finally do away or at least curb this problematic doctrine, but alas it was an opportunity it failed to seize, today denying Garco’s petition for review (which Cato had supported with anamicus brief).There are a multitude of arguments for overturningSeminole Rock andAuer. Even when the cases were decided, the Court gave little justification for the doctrine beyond administrative and judicial convenient. To the contrary, giving agencies the authority to interpret (and reinterpret) their own rules violates principl...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs