Supreme Court takes up cases challenging Chevron (2023)
| Environmental, social, and corporate governance |
|---|
|
| • What is ESG? • Enacted ESG legislation • Arguments for and against ESG • Opposition to ESG • Federal ESG rules • ESG legislation tracker • Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's weekly ESG newsletter |
The United States Supreme Court has announced that it will hear two cases challenging Chevron deference on January 17, 2024. The cases—Relentless, Inc v. Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—could change the federal administrative law landscape, with implications for ESG rules:
| “ |
The cases center on a $710 fishing fee, but could affect a wide range of American life, from the environment to healthcare and the economy. At issue is the landmark administrative principle known as the Chevron doctrine, which says that federal courts should defer to agency interpretation of an ambiguous law. While the justices have weakened the doctrine, those opposing the fishing fee urge the court to do away with it. Conservatives have long criticized the Chevron doctrine as putting too much power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. Liberals have defended it, saying it allows experts, not generalist judges, to make difficult and often technical determinations.[1] |
” |
The Chevron doctrine’s fate could affect the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) plans to require corporate reporting of emissions data. Stephen Soukup, an ESG opponent and the author of The Dictatorship of Woke Capital, argued in an August commentary that some House Republicans are, in his view, already planning for Chevron’s reversal and preparing for a larger congressional role in SEC oversight:
| “ |
Among other things, Chevron Deference has enabled Congressional apathy and passivity, encouraging legislators to write laws broadly and vaguely, so as to force administrators to set specific regulatory parameters. In so doing, Congress has delegated its constitutional authority to unelected bureaucrats, sanctioning the vast expansion of the federal government’s purview while also allowing Members to evade responsibility for policies that are deemed ineffective, counterproductive, or burdensome. The specificity with which the House Financial Services Committee approached the use of regulatory authority in its ESG (and other) legislation this past month suggests that these Members at least are anticipating a world in which all of this will be reversed, in which the administrative state will lose some of its bite, while Congress will be empowered (and required) to reassert a greater role in the management of the regulatory apparatus. Particularly with the SEC still contemplating a new rule requiring publicly traded corporations to disclose and report environmental data, it is nearly impossible to overstate how significant such developments would be.[1] |
” |
See also
- Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
- Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's ESG newsletter
External links
Footnotes
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
