The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Kavanaugh Warns Against Over-Reading Loper Bright Decision
The Court's decision to overturn Chevron should be seen as more of a "course correction" than a revolution. (Updated with Video.)
Yesterday Justice Brett Kavanaugh spoke at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law as part of a program sponsored by the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. His remarks came in the form of an interview with Professor Joel Alicea.
As Bloomberg's Lydia Wheeler reports, the Justice had some interesting things to say about how to understand the Court's decision dispatching with Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises. In particular, the Justice characterized the decision as "a course correction consistent with the separation of powers to make sure that the executive branch is acting within the authorization granted to it by Congress."
From the Bloomberg report:
"To be clear, don't over read Loper Bright," Kavanaugh said, while speaking at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in Washington on Thursday. "Oftentimes Congress will grant a broad authorization to an executive agency so it's really important, as a neutral umpire, to respect the line that Congress has drawn when it's granted broad authorization not to unduly hinder the executive branch when performing its congressional authorized functions, but at the same time not allowing the executive branch, as it could with Chevron in its toolkit, to go beyond the congressional authorization ."
This is consistent with my initial analysis of the decision.
In his remarks, Justice Kavanaugh seemed to confirm that the Court's majority was concerned about the increasing tendency of federal agencies to try and pour new wine out of old bottles and stretch pre-existing statutory authorizations into new areas. During the Bush Administration, Kavanaugh said "he saw firsthand how hard it is for presidents to get big legislation through Congress and the pressure there is on the agencies to 'push the envelope,' when it comes to regulating, which Chevron facilitated." In this regard, Loper Bright Enterprises can be seen as of a piece with the Court's major questions doctrine decisions that likewise seek to prevent agencies from exceeding the bounds of their delegated authority. (One might even say they combine to make something of a "delegation doctrine.")
Law.com also reported on Justice Kavanaugh's remarks.
UPDATE: Video of Justice Kavanaugh's remarks has now been posted. The discussion of Loper Bright occurs approximately 12 minutes in.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kavanaugh's walkback was probably due to embarrassment at the Court's getting science wrong in a decision handed down the day before Loper-Bright. The Court confused nitrogen oxide (a component of smog) with nitrous oxide (laughing gas) (Ohio v. EPA, June 27, 2024.) None of the dozens of science-averse law school graduates working on this case -- no clerk, no attorney, no judge -- caught this mistake until it was pointed out after the decision came down.
Chevron forced judges to defer to specialized agency personnel who knew what they were talking about. Those days are gone.
Evidence is weak that the "specialized agency personnel" knew what they were talking about.
concur - as noted that most of chevron deference was based policy positions, not based on science
It depends on whether the agency is controlled by a Democratic appointee (where Chevron should apply) or a Republican. Chevron involved an EPA regulation. The current EPA Administrator, appointed by Biden, has a degree in environmental science. Trump’s appointee denied the scientific consensus on climate change.
This is not a matter for debate. Republicans have been anti-expertise for some time, and Trump admits an aversion to expertise, while at the same time boasting that he never reads briefing papers or tries to learn any specialized knowledge. And such is borne out by the testimony of people who worked for him. Trump appoints people based on personal loyalty and not on qualifications. Again, this is not a matter for debate.
This is not a matter for debate
Captcrisis has spoken! The discussion is over!
If my opponent says, “I agree!”, yes , then the discussion is over.
A supposed degree in environmental science in a heavily politicalized branch of science
A few examples of the politics dominating actual science, one being the gas stove causing asthma study, a study worshiped by many is spite of academic fraud level quality of the study.
Another is the bell mcdermott study of 96 cities showing increase in premature mortality from increases in ground level ozone, a study considered the gold standard of environmental studies, yet did an extremely poor job of accounting for cofounding variables. Or any of the paleo reconstructions, with the massive amounts of post facto cherrypicking data with confidence levels vastly exceeding what any competent statistician would arrive at.
Scholarly attack is expected and even welcome, but can you provide the link?
Gas stove study
link to the authors admitting no link
https://www.shaledirectories.com/blog-1/under-scrutiny-authors-of-activist-study-on-asthma-and-gas-stoves-admit-no-causal-relationship/
there is a much better analysis dealing with why paf's are worthless for this type study specifically in relation to the asthma study, though currently having trouble locating
this one is a pdf - so the link is not the best
Reliability of Meta-Analysis Research Claims for Gas Stove ...
arXiv
https://arxiv.org › pdf
PDF
by WB Kindzierski · 2023 —
this one is not the best - it happens to be a political rant, though it does lay out some of the reasons why the study is weak
https://junkscience.com/2023/01/no-new-study-does-not-link-gas-stoves-with-asthma-in-children/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546819/
95 cities -
I am surprised there little scholarly attack on this study given the lack of the accounting for cofounding variables. Increase in temp had near 100% correlation with increased mortality while increase in ground level ozone had 60% to 70% correlation along with several cities where the total level of ozone was below a level that would cause any respiratory issues.
It also used as I recall bayesian stats which as i stated does a poor job of accounting for co founding variables.
there were other issues such as subjective criteria for cause of mortality, etc
I am no more interested in rebutting you than I am in rebutting the idea of a flat earth.
I have never quite understood, but apparently you do: what exactly is the "scientific consensus on climate change?" Wouldn't it be embodied in the work of the IPCC (the science part, not the summary for policy makers parts)? What part or parts of it did Trump's appointee deny?
fwiw - I am in the judith curry camp
It is definitely warming;
Co2 and the other greenhouse gas are contributing to the warming, though the extent is unknown.
However, far too much is unknown in climate science to have a true consensus.
Nor is the scientific integrity of climate science helped by the behavior of the climate scientists, especially in the paleo arena and followed by the misrepresentations in the areas of renewables, subsidies etc.
Chevron forced judges to defer to specialized agency personnel who knew what they were talking about.
Those days are gone.
Those days never existed. Federal agencies are led by officials who are beholden to the President. If the President wants a certain policy, the appropriate agency or agencies will come up with some science-sounding justification for that policy. In truth, Chevron let the President interpret federal law to his advantage and told federal judges not to interfere.
See my response to MS above.
None of the questions that Chevron dealt with were scientific or required any particular agency expertise. They were simply questions of statutory interpretation -- the traditional province of judges.
For example, determining what is a navigable water isn't scientific. The question is a purely legal one that has nothing to do with the best way to control water pollution but rather with the limits Congress imposed on agency action. If Congress wanted the EPA to be able to regulate property like the Sackets, it shouldn't have limited the EPA's authority to navigable waters. If Congress wants to broaden the EPA's authority to occasional wetlands on the far side of a housing development from a stream, it can do so.
Only Chevron allowed the EPA to even consider definitions that were so far afield of the language that Congress used.
In Loper-Bright, no agency expertise bore on whether a statute authorized the government to require a fisherman to pay the government's expenses in a given circumstance. The statute either authorizes it or it doesn't.
Are you saying that the Courts (and the Supreme Court) were just fine in confusing “nitrogen oxide” with “nitrous oxide”? Is that o.k. with you?
That isn’t “getting the science wrong.” That’s a typo.
The question is whether the Court is going to revive the nondelegation doctrine. If there aren't 5 votes for that, I agree with Justice Kavanaugh's point-- Congress can just make it clear they want agencies to have a lot of discretion and those statutes will survive Loper Bright and major questions challenges. But if the Court revives nondelegation, that would seriously constrict federal power.
What do you mean "revive"? This doctrine has been made up out of whole cloth by conservative law professors who want to abolish the administrative state. It has never been part of US constitutional law historically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
Oh, no.
Not something that hinders the administrative state.
The horror!
Who will protect us from ourselves if not unelected bureaucrats?
If you don't like the administrative state, feel free to propose a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. But don't make shit up.
Why look with joy at elected democratic officials casting off creating the laws to the executive branch?
The trivial stuff the founding fathers may or may not have done is overwhelmed by many magnitudes of modern behavior, and dollars of penalty.
“Look, a guy back then carried a mouse into the executive branch. Tally ho, begin the convoy of trillions of dollars!”
I'll bet you disagree with that principle in the case of guns, lamenting that tasers cannot be banned because they were not around back then, and could not be thus considered arms.
Don't need to outlaw it.
Need to weaken it and slow it down.
Don't make shit up?
Quit dry-humping the leg of the administrative state.
We don’t need a constitutional amendment to outlaw it – you need to show the existing clause in the existing Constitution that allows it.
Unlike almost all other constitutions and governing documents, the US Constitution is written on the principle of enumerated powers. The government can do what the Constitution directs and only that. Where, in the US Constitution, does it authorize the Legislative branch to delegate even an iota of its legislative powers? Where, in the US Constitution (other than courts martial), does it authorize the Executive branch to exercise judicial powers?
There's a necessary and proper clause precisely because the framers saw your vision of government was an utter unworkable failure in the Articles of Confederation and that they had to give the federal government lots of power.
The Necessary and Proper clause is an authorization for the Legislature to write what laws are necessary to carry out other clauses in the Constitution. Though there are lots of government folks who want to pretend otherwise, it is not an open-ended authorization and it does not magically override the vesting clause in Article 1, Section 1.
More to the point, the Necessary and Proper clause does not authorize the Executive branch to do anything. Even if it is broader than I believe, it is a grant to Congress alone.
The major question doctrine is only a doctrine which ruled against the executive branch policy positions that the executive could doe what ever it wanted as long as congress did not specifically ban the policy.
ie congress didnt prohibit a blanket student loan forgiveness program, therefore the executive branch is authorized to issue a blanket student loan forgiveness.
those arguing against the major questions doctrine are essentially arguing that the executive branch should be able to what ever it wants as long as congress hasnt specifically barred the action.
This is also a result of Trump misusing "Zomg it's an emergency, build the wall!"
You were warned a Democrat would come along and argue emergency, and here we are.
No matter, the eternal power of now, and the eternal now of power, is what matters.
Schechter Poultry was unanimous. You may not like it (I happen to think it struck down one of the single dumbest statutes in American history) but you know, it's not like Cardozo (who called the idiotic National Recovery Act "delegation running riot") was some flaming right winger.
Um, the Northwest Ordinance predates the constitution.
"But if the Court revives nondelegation, that would seriously constrict federal power."
That would be a happy outcome.
It could be absolutely terrible.
There's a reason libertarians never win major elections and no successful country has ever had a minimal state. Whatever the Constitution means, it HAS to be construed to allow a massive amount of federal regulatory power. Otherwise the American experiment could be destroyed.
Dilan Esper 9 mins ago
Flag Comment
" Whatever the Constitution means, it HAS to be construed to allow a massive amount of federal regulatory power. Otherwise the American experiment could be destroyed."
In other words a "dictatorship"
What a bullshit dichotomy you've come up with.
It brands just about the entire free world a dictatorship, leaving only failed states like Somalia as bastions of freedom.
What BS - Cutting through the proffered excuse (ie crap reasoning) - that is exactly the position taken by the biden administration with the student loan forgiveness
Congress didnt ban it, so the president can forgive the student loans
This is remarkably wrong. The administration cited laws that they say gave them that authority.
It's also off topic...and I fell for it.
Even assuming you are right, ultra vires student loan forgiveness does not a dictatorship make.
Sorry, Sonja_T: Biden’s unconstitutional power grab was a disgrace and liberals should be ashamed of their hypocrisy, this is a complete non sequitur. The issue there was that congress had never purported to delegate the authority to cancel the loans. The non-delegation doctrine deals with the issue of whether Congress would have been allowed to make such a delegation if it wanted to (and, even under a pretty robust construction of the doctrine, it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t).
Construed by whom?
"Whatever the Constitution means, it HAS to be construed to allow a massive amount of federal regulatory power."
Maybe, but does not mean the executive has to exercise it by creating regulations.
Every regulation could be a statute.
Every regulation could be a statute.
Unless, you know, you've ever glanced at Congress at any time throughout our nation's history.
They are generalists at best, populist ignoramuses at worst, and you cannot write enough laws to act as scalpels; their laws are hammers.
'no regs only laws' could just as easily be a more authoritarian place with one-size-fits-all laws broadly applied, than it would make for smaller government.
Congress can write detailed laws if it wants. Its able to dodge that by letting the executive do its work, removing that crutch will eventually force it to do its job.
Agencies can draft laws, send to Congress and they can be debate, amended and passed by the people's representatives, not faceless drones.
The problem is that's just a deliberate attempt by you to stack the deck against regulation.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit administrative agencies. It doesn't require that Congress legislate in absolute detail. And of course, the intention of the Constitution was to replace a failed scheme of limited government under the Articles with a massively powerful federal government that would solve any problem of national scope.
If libertarians want to repeal regulations they can try to win elections under our system and then repeal regulations. But writing an extraconstitutional rule that gives them a legislative veto over regulations would be a complete betrayal of the values embedded in the Constitution.
"Whatever the Constitution means, it HAS to be construed to allow a massive amount of federal regulatory power."
Construe this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I expect Loper Bright will necessitate a walk-back in an upcoming term, much as Bruen did. The claims being filed are throwing Loper Bright at all kinds of agency rules and determinations, and the Trump judges below (including in particular the extremist members of the Fifth Circuit) will have a heyday citing Loper Bright to cut back on any agency policy they don’t like.
In much the same way that Bruen directed courts to undertake an unsustainably particular “historical analogue” inquiry in order to determine whether a modern gun regulation could stand, Loper Bright is going to create divergence in the lower courts when it comes to agency rules that are within the scope of a judicially-construed statutory provision but reach a level of detail not expressly contemplated by statute. Some judges are going to say that “the law” permits agency rulemaking within the scope of authority granted by statute; others are going to say that “the law” does not permit agency rulemaking on a more granular level than the statute itself provides. The latter position will not be sustainable, as statutes have typically been drafted, so we’ll probably find the Court backing itself into a quasi-Chevron all over again. We’ll just call it something else.
It’s all so frustrating and pointless, especially considering that it seemed like the agency in Loper Bright should have lost on Chevron terms anyway.
You seem to be conflating nondelegation and Chevron deference, or perhaps the major questions doctrine and Chevron deference.
No. I'm just familiar with some of the claims being made in litigation right now. Perhaps you should follow some of it?
Perhaps if you offered an example or two they might prompt a more illuminating discussion?
After watching the ATF absolutely abuse it's authority and trying to make criminals out of millions of Americans, I couldn't be happier with this decision.
Those MF's should have to ask Congress for permission to take a piss, as far as I'm concerned.
Republicans are such cowards.
Yes, everyone knows bravery is not caring what other people think.
No, wait, that's being awful to be with.
Because everybody knows just how welcoming progressives are of people who disagree with them!
I really think that because people chase shiny buzzwords, they over focus on Loper Bright; it won't make a huge difference in anything. Most cases will come out the same. Corner Post, in my estimation, is much much much more significant.
If I had to guess, you're right.
But I don't think it's a slam dunk; really depends on the mood of the judiciary.
Agreed, at least in theory, though I'd think we'll have to have a limiting principle on Corner Post too, at some point. It's just too open to abuse.
Nothing posted.