The case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, could change a nearly 40-year precedent

By Grace Hamilton, Opinions and Editorials Editor

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce last Wednesday, which will decide whether a 40-year-old precedent concerning federal regulations is overturned.

The case comes from herring fishermen from Rhode Island and New Jersey who are concerned about recent regulations directing them to pay a fee — about $700 a day — for workers to observe their fish intake and ensure they are following other regulations. The 2020 rule was put in place by the National Marine Fisheries Service, based on its interpretation of a law from 1976. 

Relentless, Inc. draws importance from the legal question at its center: the decision from Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Ruled on in 1984, the decision of Chevron set the precedent for a system of how judges assess challenges to federal regulations — referred to as the Chevron deference. 

The original case concerned the National Resources Defense Council challenging new definitions regarding sources of air pollution employed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Supreme Court ruled that deference fell to the EPA’s interpretation of the word “source.” 

The resulting Chevron deference decreed that judges, when confronted with these challenges to federal regulations, should consider whether or not the law is clear. Then, if the law is found to be ambiguous, the judge is supposed to concede to the agency’s interpretation of the law, if reasonable. 

Relentless, Inc. is challenging the Chevron deference. Conservative legal foundations and business groups, such as Gun Owners of America, have taken interest in the case as well, backing an overturning of the 1984 precedent by arguing that it hands too much power to federal agencies at the expense of Congress and the judiciary.

“When the statute is ambiguous, and the tie has to go to someone, we think the tie should go to the citizen and not the government. And one of the many problems with the Chevron rule is… the tie goes to the government,” Paul Clement, a former solicitor general representing the fishermen in Relentless, Inc., said.

The Supreme Court has heard three and a half hours of arguments regarding the case. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have led the conservative majority on the court in opposing the Chevron decision, followed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 

Roman Martinez, speaking on behalf of Relentless Inc., conveyed the main concerns with Chevron, that of judicial bias and agency overreach. This argument has been backed by mostly conservative groups concerning guns, e-cigarettes, farming, timber and home-buildings. 

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending Chevron on behalf of the Biden administration, wrote in a Supreme Court filing, “Chevron gives appropriate weight to the expertise, often of a scientific or technical nature, that federal agencies can bring to bear in interpreting federal statutes.”

David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, believes that overturning Chevron will remove powers from the federal government so that “billionaires and big companies” can act without repercussions or regulation. 

The decision regarding Relentless, Inc., and ultimately the Chevron deference, is predicted to come down in the early summer and depends on the final opinions of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Both lean conservative, though Barrett has expressed concern over a potential “flood of litigation” should the precedent be overturned.