Agency Laws Essay

Solomon (2017) asserts that the Chevron Defense plays, or obscure legal theories, are essential to the Trump administration’s plans, particularly those aimed at controlling the regulatory state. The legal dispute between Chevron U.S.A. and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which addressed what the courts ought to do whenever the Congress passes a law with a murky interpretation, gave rise to the term Chevron Defense. As it includes laws ranging from financial regulations to drug safety, such cases frequently occur more frequently than one might anticipate. Using the Dodd-Frank Act as an illustration, it mandates the publication of 390 rules, with the Volcker Rule alone totaling 950 pages when combined with the interpretations. Nowadays in the regulatory world, agencies often step in to fill gaps, and they usually come forth with their interpretations of the law. However, the principles of the Chevron case dictate that a federal court must be divergent from a federal agency’s views. The reason behind this doctrine is that an agency with its expertise will always be in a better position than a judge knows a statute’s meaning (Solomon, 2017).

Even though this may sound innocuous, it addresses the issues of separation of power and how much power an administrative state comprises; the array of federal agencies, which promulgate regulations and administer. For instance, today, Washington is not the government of the founders but of successors since it comprises of 15 cabinet-level departments with more than 430 agencies not forgetting that there are other entities and employees.

Having such a big bureaucracy is not a bad thing given that the US economy is much larger and more complex than it was 200 years ago. Therefore, such a vast and diverse economy needs regulations. Despite the fact that Trump’s administration promised to reduce the bureaucracy, it is quite cumbersome for the modern economy to run without some degree of regulations regardless of what it concerns; whether is concerns the security of financial institutions like Banks or the safety of food and drugs.

It is as a result of such initiative that Chevron Defense comes in. It hands over some power from the judicial branch of the state, with its interpretations whether it involves New York’s water supply or alcohol containers. Many perceive this as creating an unaccountable branch of the government which may end up reducing the power of the regulators. In fact, there is a bill that seeks to get rid of Chevron defense (Solomon, 2017).

Judge Gorsuch (one of the doctrine’s famous critic) believes that agencies are given so much power that it might be cumbersome for the court to fulfill their duty to interpret and declare illegal agency actions based on their interpretations and the current controversial issues around them. But, the odd thing about Chevron doctrine is that it was created by the conservative government.

Thus, Chevron Defense seeks to determine who decides the law; whether it is the judges or the agencies. Perhaps, this is an important question about separation of powers and the law. However, Chevron defense would not end the federal administrative state or tame regulations by any means.

Reference

Solomon, S. D. (2017, March 14). Should Agencies Decide Law? Doctrine May Be Tested at Gorsuch Hearing. The New York Times [New York], p. 51.