THE FORUM: NORTHWESTERN’S PREMIER LEGAL BLOG
Can Books be Banned? The Legality of Censorship in United States Libraries
By: Faith Magiera
Edited by: Jonah Elkowitz and Isabel Gortner
When a child picks out a book in a school library, to what extent should the material they are choosing from be controlled or censored? Book bans have swept the nation as the political landscape has become more ideologically charged in recent years, with children’s education at the forefront of many debates about what materials should be present in educational landscapes. States led by conservative politicians, such as Texas, have led the nation in banning books that often pertain to LGBTQ+ or race-related topics, as Texas attempted to censor over 2,500 titles in 2022. [1] With the increase of book bans, schools have become a battleground for ideologies to rehash which reading material children have access to. With this partisan battle taking place in school districts across the country, cases addressing the legality of book bans in states such as Florida and Texas have come to the forefront of national consciousness. Grappling with the idea of book bans and their constitutionality is necessary to understanding violations of the First Amendment’s freedom of expression clause, which is something that the United States has and continues to struggle with as media coverage of this issue increases.
Book bans in states such as Texas have deemed titles such as The Bluest Eye by Toni Morison as “sexually explicit” and thus, able to be censored in children’s libraries.[2] As the American Library Association explains, the Supreme Court has historically defended the right of private individuals to consume media that could be perceived as controversial, even in the face of governmental censorship. [3] However, there are categories of speech that can and have been censored by the government, including obscenity. In Roth v. United States, the Warren Court ruled that books could be censored if they were “utterly without redeeming social importance” [4], a standard that is not only subjective but also vague. As many recent bans categorize the books in question as obscene or sexually explicit, it is important to understand the Supreme Court precedent that allows the government to infringe upon speech while still operating in the purview of the First Amendment. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, a similar book-banning case in the 1980s that was brought before the Supreme Court, dealt with issues that we see in today’s book bans. [5] The school board of a Massachusetts town wanted to take books out of circulation from school libraries that were deemed to be obscene and contrary to values they wanted to enforce in the educational environment. [6] Consequently, a group of students decided to sue in defense of the books with the Supreme Court eventually ruling in their favor. [7] The decision stated that “the First Amendment imposes limitations upon a local school board's exercise of its discretion to remove books from…school libraries,” which has precedent in the protection of students’ First Amendment rights by Tinker v. Des Moines School District. [8] The difference between a school library and a school classroom is something essential to consider here, as a teacher’s ability to develop a curriculum does not extend to the space of “voluntary inquiry” that a school library is supposed to be. [9] The idea of freedom of thought, something inherent to libraries, is foregrounded in the decision of Board of Education v. Pico and is something that states should keep in mind when contemplating book bans today.
In combating the increase of book bans occurring since 2020, states such as Illinois have taken an active stand in protecting the right of libraries to circulate books freely. [10] Following in the footsteps of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, the 2023 law signed into effect by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker prevents any book bans from occurring in the state's public schools or libraries. [11] Directly entering the partisan ideological battle, Governor Pritzker commented on other governor’s “hypocritical” censorship of books that do not fit their political ideology, potentially in reference to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. [12] This is one way that we see book bans being confronted through the legislative system, but there are other judicial cases that are confronting the legality of book bans.
Coming back to Texas, while book bans have become more prevalent in the state within the past few years, there has also been a 2024 federal appeals court decision that blocked a law aimed at censorship of books in educational settings. [13] The decision stated that the 2023 Texas law, The Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources Act, or READER Act, was unconstitutional because of its rating system that would require book vendors to rate the sexual explicitness of all books to sell them to Texas schools. [14] As the rating system requires private individuals and corporations to “either speak as the State demands or suffer the consequences,” it infringes upon the constitutional rights of those individuals not to speak or share their opinions about the books, an innately subjective task. [15] This decision in the case Book People, Incorporated v. Wong sets a precedent for other book banning systems to be unconstitutional in the future.
In an increasingly polarized political landscape, it is hard not to see the importance of these ideological battles that are occurring at the very foundation of the educational system. While book bans are no new phenomenon, as seen by Board of Education v. Pico, [16] the extent to which they have been both covered in the media and have entered the mainstream national consciousness in recent years is something to be noted and investigated, While cases and laws have recently favored the idea of freedom of expression as opposed to censorship, [17] the United States’ political landscape is tumultuous, and thus, one can never know where future Supreme Court decisions and state laws will take the legality of book bans. As book bans stand at the intersection of the question of the power of organizations such as school boards to disseminate their ideas and the freedom of speech and expression of individuals, it is an issue that cannot be neatly decided. However, for right now, it is essential to not only be informed of the ways censorship is impacting American libraries but also to understand the somewhat shaky legal grounds of the precedent decisions relating to obscenity and censorship that lie at the very root of the book bans.
Notes:
Salam, Erum. 2023. “Texas Was State with Most Book Bans in 2022, Report Shows.” The Guardian, September 14, 2023, sec. US news. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/14/texas-most-book-bans-2022
Salam, “Texas Was the State with Most Book Bans.”
American Library Association. 2008. “First Amendment and Censorship.” American Library Association. June 13, 2008. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Mayorquin, Orlando. 2023. “To Fight Book Bans, Illinois Passes a Ban on Book Bans.” The New York Times, June 13, 2023, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/illinois-book-bans-schools-public-libraries.html.
Mayorquin, “Illinois Passes a Ban on Book Bans.”
Mayorquin, “Illinois Passes a Ban on Book Bans.”
Helsel, Phil. 2024. “U.S. Appeals Court Blocks Texas Law That Could Ban or Restrict Library Books.” NBC News. January 18, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-appeals-court-blocks-texas-law-ban-restrict-library-books-rcna134426.
Book People, Inc. v. Wong, No. 23-50668 (5th Cir. 2024).
Book People, Inc. v. Wong, No. 23-50668 (5th Cir. 2024), 28.
Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Helsel, “U.S. Appeals Court Blocks Texas Law.”
Bibliography:
American Library Association. 2008. “First Amendment and Censorship.” American Library Association. June 13, 2008. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship.
Book People, Inc. v. Wong, No. 23-50668 (5th Cir. 2024), 28.
Helsel, Phil. 2024. “U.S. Appeals Court Blocks Texas Law That Could Ban or Restrict Library Books.” NBC News. January 18, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-appeals-court-blocks-texas-law-ban-restrict-library-books-rcna134426.
Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Mayorquin, Orlando. 2023. “To Fight Book Bans, Illinois Passes a Ban on Book Bans.” The New York Times, June 13, 2023, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/illinois-book-bans-schools-public-libraries.html.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
Salam, Erum. 2023. “Texas Was State with Most Book Bans in 2022, Report Shows.” The Guardian, September 14, 2023, sec. US news. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/14/texas-most-book-bans-2022.
Moody v. Net Choice and Net Choice v. Paxton: The Future of Online Content Moderation
By: Matthew Vega
Edited by: Isabel Niemer and ISabel Gortner
On February 26th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Moody v. Net Choice, LLC and Net Choice, LLC v. Paxton, both of which were cases involved with content moderation laws protecting conservative speech in Florida and Texas, respectively. The Supreme Court is expected to release its decisions by the summer, which will determine whether the content moderation restrictions in Florida S.B. 7072 align with the First Amendment and whether the law's requirements for individualized explanations also adhere to First Amendment principles in the case of Moody v. Net Choice.[1] The Supreme Court will also decide whether the provisions of Texas HB 20, which prohibit social media platforms from censoring users' content and impose strict disclosure requirements, violate the First Amendment in the case of Net Choice v. Paxton.[2]
The Supreme Court did not have many cases to use as precedent for social media speech regulation, instead basing most of their arguments on cases involving other kinds of speech, such as Miami Herald v. Tornillo which held that the government cannot force newspapers to print replies from candidates they criticize, as it would infringe upon the newspaper's editorial discretion and right to control its content, giving the press the right to editorial discretion. [3] Neither of these proposed laws have been enacted yet, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit blocked Florida from enforcing most of the law and the Supreme Court barred the state from implementing its law while the case continued.
During oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices remained skeptical of the constitutionality of the new Florida and Texas laws. In the case of Moody v. Net Choice, Henry Whitaker argued on behalf of the petitioners that “the design of the First Amendment is to prevent the suppression of speech, not to enable it.” [4] Many members of the Supreme Court rejected this framework of the issue, such as Justice Kagan who called the proposed legislation “a classic First Amendment violation.” Justice Kavanaugh even rebuked this notion by Whitaker, citing Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, PG&E v. Public Utilities Comm'n, and Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo as cases that “emphasize editorial control as being fundamentally protected by the First Amendment.”[5] [6] This editorial control issue was shared by nearly every member of the Supreme Court. Even Justice Alito who appeared more inclined to uphold the laws, asked Whitaker if content moderation was anything more than “a euphemism for censorship”. Justice Alito additionally pointed out that because of the broad scope of the Florida Legislation, Internet mail services like Gmail also fall under the scope of controlled speech, asking if “Gmail [has] a First Amendment right to delete, let's say, Tucker Carlson's or Rachel Maddow's Gmail accounts if they don't agree with … his or her viewpoints?”
At the beginning of the Net Choice, LLC v. Paxton case, Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of Net Choice in both cases that day, began his oral argument by jokingly pointing out how similar both cases were, then stating the primary difference between the two was that the Texas legislation is much more narrowly focused on social media platforms rather than websites. [7] This means that the Gmail example in the previous case would not apply. However, the Texas legislation also excludes websites based on “news, sports, and entertainment” which he called content-based discrimination which would be “facially unconstitutional.” Justice Gorsuch expressed confusion with the application of editorial control from social media platforms and why they do not consider it speech in regards to the First Amendment and not speech in regards to the Texas law.
Though they appeared to have issues with the proposed legislation from both Florida and Texas, the Justices did appear to be in favor of some changes being made to the ability of social media platforms to restrict or promote content. Given the sweeping implications of this case on online speech, the Supreme Court is expected to deliver an incredibly narrow decision regardless of which side they rule in favor of. If the court rules in favor of Net Choice, they likely anticipate another case similar in content to be brought to them in the future.
Notes:
"Moody v. NetChoice, LLC" SCOTUSblog, October 14, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/10/justices-question-finding-that-s-c-district-was-unconstitutional-racial-gerrymander/
"NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton” SCOTUSblog, October 14, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/10/justices-question-finding-that-s-c-district-was-unconstitutional-racial-gerrymander/
"Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo." Justia US Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/1/.
"Oral Argument Transcript: Moody v. Net Choice, LLC." Supreme Court of the United States, 2023, https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-277_5536.pdf.
"Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston." Justia US Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/557/.
"PG&E v. Public Utilities Comm'n." Justia US Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/241/.
"Oral Argument Transcript: Net Choice, LLC. v. Paxton " Supreme Court of the United States, 2023, https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-555_omq2.pdf
Bibliography:
"Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston." Justia US Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/557/.
"Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo." Justia US Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/1/.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-555_omq2.pdf
"Moody v. NetChoice, LLC" SCOTUSblog, October 14, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/10/justices-question-finding-that-s-c-district-was-unconstitutional-racial-gerrymander/
"NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton” SCOTUSblog, October 14, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/10/justices-question-finding-that-s-c-district-was-unconstitutional-racial-gerrymander.
"Oral Argument Transcript: Moody v. Net Choice, LLC." Supreme Court of the United States, 2023, https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-277_5536.pdf.
"Oral Argument Transcript: Net Choice, LLC. v. Paxton " Supreme Court of the United States, 2023,
"PG&E v. Public Utilities Comm'n." Justia US Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/241/.
The Need for a Global Plastics Treaty is More Urgent Than Ever
By: Kunjal Bastola
Edited by: Angie Chung and Simon Carr
As marine plastic pollution continues to rise, contributing to degradation of the oceans and marine biodiversity, the need for a global plastics treaty is more pressing than ever. Climate scientists and activists have been emphasizing the urgency of implementing a more efficient system of reducing waste and recycling materials.[1] In March 2022, the UN Environmental Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution to develop a legally binding document on plastic pollution by the end of 2024.[2] With that deadline approaching, let’s take a look at the progress that has been made so far.
At the UN assembly back in 2022, an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was established to lead the development of the treaty.[3] The assembly also came to a conclusion that the treaty should address the full lifecycle of plastics, from production to disposal, so as to properly mitigate plastic pollution.[4] So far, the INC has held three sessions to negotiate and draft the treaty.[5] The first session took place in Punta del Este, Uruguay in 2022.[6] The second session took place in Paris, France in 2023.[7] The third, and most recent, session took place in 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya in 2023.[8]
Many activists argue that the oil and gas industries are less invested in making cuts to the production of plastic but rather in recycling and waste management solutions, despite it being an important step in reducing the harmful effects of plastic pollution.[9] While it is important to take into account the entire lifecycle of plastics, including waste and recycling, the key to truly decreasing plastic pollution starts with plastic production. Almost every part of plastic is made of chemicals derived from fossil fuels, hence it is important to not only recycle and manage plastic waste properly, but also cut down on its production.[10]
According to NPR, another impediment to the progression of the treaty deals with the challenge of bringing countries together to create an effective plan in decreasing plastic pollution.[11] While some countries advocate for a stronger framework, there are still a handful that want a looser, more voluntary framework.[12] Furthermore, 143 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the most recent round of negotiations in Nairobi, giving them access to these negotiations at a critical time as the climate crisis worsens.[13] With the deadline for the treaty approaching, each negotiating session is becoming more critical than the previous one, and it’s likely industry lobbyists will continue to attend and exert influence over the discussions.
During the next session, which is set to be in Ottawa, Canada from April 23 to 29 and is the fourth among five scheduled sessions, major changes need to be made in order for tangible progress to occur by the end of this year. [14] Plastic pollution will continue to increase and severely harm the marine environment if action isn’t taken soon. March 2024 marks the second year since the adoption of the resolution that kick-started the development of a global plastics treaty. A framework that adequately addresses the plastic pollution crisis is more imperative than ever.
Notes:
Plastics Europe, “The Global Plastics Treaty,” Plastics Europe, November 20, 2023, https://plasticseurope.org/changingplasticsforgood/global-plastics-treaty/.
“United Nations Adopts Historic Resolution to End Plastic Pollution,” opc.ca.gov, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://opc.ca.gov/2022/03/united-nations-adopts-historic-resolution-to-end-plastic-pollution/.
“Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution,” UNEP, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
“Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution,” UNEP, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
“Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution,” UNEP, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
“Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution,” UNEP, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
“Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution,” UNEP, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
“Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution,” UNEP, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
Copley, Michael, “Global Talks to Cut Plastic Waste Stall as Industry and Environmental Groups Clash,” NPR, November 20, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1214141053/un-plastic-waste-pollution-negotiations-treaty-kenya-fossil-fuel-climate-change#:~:text=Negotiations%20over%20a%20global%20plastics,how%20to%20advance%20the%20deliberations.
Copley, Michael, “Global Talks to Cut Plastic Waste Stall as Industry and Environmental Groups Clash,” NPR, November 20, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1214141053/un-plastic-waste-pollution-negotiations-treaty-kenya-fossil-fuel-climate-change#:~:text=Negotiations%20over%20a%20global%20plastics,how%20to%20advance%20the%20deliberations.
Copley, Michael, “Global Talks to Cut Plastic Waste Stall as Industry and Environmental Groups Clash,” NPR, November 20, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1214141053/un-plastic-waste-pollution-negotiations-treaty-kenya-fossil-fuel-climate-change#:~:text=Negotiations%20over%20a%20global%20plastics,how%20to%20advance%20the%20deliberations.
Copley, Michael, “Global Talks to Cut Plastic Waste Stall as Industry and Environmental Groups Clash,” NPR, November 20, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1214141053/un-plastic-waste-pollution-negotiations-treaty-kenya-fossil-fuel-climate-change#:~:text=Negotiations%20over%20a%20global%20plastics,how%20to%20advance%20the%20deliberations.
Copley, Michael, “Global Talks to Cut Plastic Waste Stall as Industry and Environmental Groups Clash,” NPR, November 20, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1214141053/un-plastic-waste-pollution-negotiations-treaty-kenya-fossil-fuel-climate-change#:~:text=Negotiations%20over%20a%20global%20plastics,how%20to%20advance%20the%20deliberations.
“Fossil Fuel and Chemical Industries Registered More Lobbyists at Plastics Treaty Talks than 70 Countries Combined,” Center for International Environmental Law, November 15, 2023, https://www.ciel.org/news/fossil-fuel-and-chemical-industries-at-inc-3/.
“Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution,” UNEP, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
Bibliography:
Copley, Michael, “Global Talks to Cut Plastic Waste Stall as Industry and Environmental Groups Clash,” NPR, November 20, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1214141053/un-plastic-waste-pollution-negotiations-treaty-kenya-fossil-fuel-climate-change#:~:text=Negotiations%20over%20a%20global%20plastics,how%20to%20advance%20the%20deliberations.
“Fossil Fuel and Chemical Industries Registered More Lobbyists at Plastics Treaty Talks than 70 Countries Combined,” Center for International Environmental Law, November 15, 2023, https://www.ciel.org/news/fossil-fuel-and-chemical-industries-at-inc-3/.
“Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution,” UNEP, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
Plastics Europe, “The Global Plastics Treaty,” Plastics Europe, November 20, 2023, https://plasticseurope.org/changingplasticsforgood/global-plastics-treaty/.
“United Nations Adopts Historic Resolution to End Plastic Pollution,” opc.ca.gov, Accessed February 26, 2024, https://opc.ca.gov/2022/03/united-nations-adopts-historic-resolution-to-end-plastic-pollution/.
The Chevron Deference and the Future of Regulatory Agencies in the United States
By: Eliana Aemro Selassie
Edited by: Eleanor Bergstein and Madison bruno
The Chevron Deference is an important precedent in administrative law that could soon be overturned, changing the legal jurisdiction of both federal agencies and Congress. Chevron became an important legal precedent as a result of the Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. case heard by the Supreme Court in 1984. [1] The Chevron case arose when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the Clean Air Act, allowing states to group pollution-emitting devices under the same “bubble” or regulatory term. This greatly benefitted major fossil fuel corporations like Chevron since the bubble regulation included provisions allowing industrial and fossil fuel plants to install new pieces of equipment without new permits that the act previously required. Several environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the regulation, viewing it as a violation of the Clean Air Act and an attempt by the federal government to loosen air pollution restrictions. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the EPA’s interpretation of the Clear Air Act and its applications, establishing the Chevron deference. [2]
Despite marking an initial loss for environmental groups, the Chevron case has had a fundamental impact on administrative law. The Chevron case was particularly impactful because it set a new precedent for the jurisdiction of government agencies, extending their power to determine interpretations of Congressional statutes if the statute is ambiguous. [3] Under the Chevron deference, federal courts can accept a federal agency’s interpretation of “an ambiguous or unclear statute” entrusted to the agency by Congress. Despite the important role that Chevron has played in administrative law, there is a large possibility that it could be overturned. Under the Trump Administration, a growing number of Supreme Court justices have shifted to critique the Chevron deference, questioning its validity. [4] At the forefront of this shift is Justice Clarence Thomas, who was previously one of the biggest proponents of Chevron. In 2005, Thomas wrote an opinion defending Chevron in the National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services case. In the opinion, Thomas argued that “Chevron requires a federal court to accept the agency’s construction of the statute, even if the agency’s reading differs from what the court believes is the best statutory interpretation”. [3]
Thomas’ defense of Chevron and its applications in administrative law has gradually weakened over time. In the Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency of 2015, Thomas sided with fellow conservative justices, arguing that the EPA had exceeded its jurisdiction, arguing against the extended power that Chevron grants to government agencies. Justice Thomas eventually publicly announced that his opinion in 2005 on the Brand X case was ill-advised, formally shifting his stance to become an opponent of Chevron. Many have pointed out that Thomas’ shift to critiquing Chevron was largely a result of gifts he received from conservative businessmen. Billionaires Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo are among many businessmen who have worked to overturn Chevron to benefit from looser government agency regulations that removing Chevron would provide. Both Crow and Leo have actively provided Thomas and his family with substantial gifts like luxury travel and financial donations. In addition to Justice Thomas, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have also publicly expressed their opposition to Chevron, illustrating a growing opposition to Chevron's deference in the Supreme Court that could potentially lead to it being overturned [3].
The Chevron deference is now under threat of being overturned in the upcoming Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The case determines whether the federal agency National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can place limits on fish catch to prevent overfishing by major fishing companies like Loper Bright Enterprises. [5] The outcome of the case will effectively determine if the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron. [6] Overturning Chevron could have potentially disastrous consequences for administrative law and the future of government agencies. If Chevron were overturned, federal judges would be increasingly responsible for interpreting statutes that agents specialized in addressing the issues are much better suited to do. [5] Government agencies are responsible for a myriad of health, environmental, safety, and financial issues. Officials in these agencies should be allowed to use their expertise to address matters in those fields, rather than federal judges. Furthermore, as the climate crisis worsens, limiting the jurisdiction of environmental agencies like the EPA could reduce their capacity to address environmental issues. The ever-worsening state of the environment could continue to decline as a result of the limitations placed on environmental agencies, potentially restricting their already limited control over environmental policy. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision could immensely impact how regulatory agencies operate and the future of administrative law in the United States. [7]
Notes:
Cornell University. “Chevron deference Primary tabs.” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference.
Stevens, John Paul. “Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.” Oyez, 29 February 1984, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1005. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Rock, Julia, and Andrew Perez. “Influenced by Dark Money, Clarence Thomas Has Reversed His Position on a Landmark Legal Doctrine.” Jacobin, 10 May 2023, https://jacobin.com/2023/05/clarence-thomas-chevron-regulatory-doctrine-conservatives-dark-money. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Hamilton, Alexander, and Kenneth Starr. “Chevron deference (doctrine).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine). Accessed 2 March 2024.
Pazzanese, Christina. “Scholar explains implications of SCOTUS revisiting 'Chevron deference'— Harvard Gazette.” Harvard Gazette, 16 January 2024, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/01/chevron-deference-faces-existential-test/. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Oyez. “Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.” Oyez, 17 January 2024, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Turrentine, Jeff. “What Happens If the Supreme Court Ends “Chevron Deference”?” NRDC, 21 June 2023, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Bibliography:
Cornell University. “Chevron deference Primary tabs.” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference.
Hamilton, Alexander, and Kenneth Starr. “Chevron deference (doctrine).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine). Accessed 2 March 2024.
Oyez. “Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.” Oyez, 17 January 2024, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Pazzanese, Christina. “Scholar explains implications of SCOTUS revisiting 'Chevron deference'— Harvard Gazette.” Harvard Gazette, 16 January 2024, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/01/chevron-deference-faces-existential-test/. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Rock, Julia, and Andrew Perez. “Influenced by Dark Money, Clarence Thomas Has Reversed His Position on a Landmark Legal Doctrine.” Jacobin, 10 May 2023, https://jacobin.com/2023/05/clarence-thomas-chevron-regulatory-doctrine-conservatives-dark-money. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Stevens, John Paul. “Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.” Oyez, 29 February 1984, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1005. Accessed 2 March 2024.
Turrentine, Jeff. “What Happens If the Supreme Court Ends “Chevron Deference”?” NRDC, 21 June 2023, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference. Accessed 2 March 2024.