Three-Minute Legal Talks: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Signed into law in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fisheries operating within 200 nautical miles off the U.S. coast to allow federal observers onboard its vessels to collect data for preventing overfishing. In a potentially landmark Supreme Court case known as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a group of fisheries from New England are challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, asserting they are not required to pay the salaries of the observers.
At issue in Loper is the Chevron doctrine, which gives federal agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, the power to interpret any statute’s ambiguity that falls under its purview. As one of the most cited cases since it was issued four decades ago, Chevron’s fate is in limbo as the Supreme Court hears Loper during the 2023-24 session.
In three minutes, Sanne Knudsen, the Stimson Bullitt Endowed Professor of Environmental Law at UW Law, covers Loper and its potential impact on the Chevron doctrine.

[@oldones59]

To construe that NIMS requires private fishers to pay federal observers' salaries is a predatory practice. Would the fisjers also be liable if an observer got injured?

[@AlexanderNewman-v1x]

This is good for America. Less useless regulation by unelected government bureaucrats.
If Congress wants to pass a law requiring federal observers on fishing boats, they are free to do so.

[@budgreen4x4]

R I.p Chevron and brand X
The people can dream

[@zacsimillion]

Bye bye bureaucrats

[@matthennagersguitarlessons]

Get rid of it!

[@daveapex493]

I think 'Chevron' also has our state's administrative agencies believing they have 'all' of the power to interpret their empowering statutes and try to completely ignore step one. The statute ordered an administrative agency to write a 'required curriculum' for commercial schools and that agency acts like this document is required by law, without ever adopting the document in rule as per the requirements of the APA. Also, there is too much presumption the staff of the administrative agency are experts dealing in that field. Sorry, many agency staff act like - just because they hold a certain position and were given some internal training - they are an expert. I hope 'Chevron' is gone, so agency folks and those dealing with them - will get back to reading the law, instead of relying upon or fearing the policy of the month. Thanks