Supreme Court ’ s Overturning of Chevron Doctrine
For forty years , federal courts gave regulatory agencies great deference as to how laws are implemented and how regulations are enforced , particularly in the area where federal law was silent on a specific policy matter . This deference stemmed from a 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron vs . the Natural Resources Defense Council , where the Court found that the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) was free to define the term “ source ” in enforcing the Clean Air Act , as the statute did not specifically define that term . This framework for legal decisions became known as the “ Chevron Doctrine .”
The Supreme Court overturned the Chevron Doctrine in their decision issued in late June in issuing its decision in two connected cases : Loper Bright Enterprises vs . Raimondo and Relentless vs . Department of Commerce . The cases were brought by a commercial fishing company challenging one of the Department of Commerce ’ s agencies – the National Marine Fisheries Service – for determining that private fishing companies need to pay for having independent observers on board their vessels to monitor their catch . In issuing this decision the Supreme Court i specifically threw out the Chevron Doctrine , saying it was not consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act ( APA ), the federal statute that guides federal agencies in their rulemaking process .
There are many legal experts who believe that reversing the Chevron Doctrine will make it easier to challenge all federal regulations issued by agencies in the courts . For CLDA members , the hope is that this will make the Department of Labor ’ s ( DOL ) regulations around the use of independent contractors more susceptible to legal challenges . Specifically , former Secretary of Labor Scalia identified the DOL ’ s independent contractor regulation as one that might be more vulnerable in the post-Chevron era in an op-ed he published earlier this year . Time will tell how federal courts will view legal challenges to regulations in this new post-Chevron era , but there is renewed hope that the courts will view the DOL as overstepping its legal authority in their issuance of its independent contractor regulation .
Indpendent Contractors
The Congressional Review Act ( CRA ) is a federal law that allows Congress to vote to overturn regulations when Congress believes an agency either is not interrupting the law correctly or if it thinks an agency overstepped its statutory authority . Resolutions offered under the CRA are considered privileged resolutions in the Senate and are able to be called up for a vote at any time . They only need a simple majority of the Senate to pass . Congressman Kevin Kiley ( R-CA ), who Chairs the Workforce Protections Subcommittee on the House Education and Workforce Committee and Senator Bill Cassidy ( R-LA ), who serves as the Ranking Member on the Senate Health , Education , Labor , and Pensions ( HELP ) Committee both introduced companion CRA resolutions ( H . J . Res . 116 and S . J . Res . 63 , respectively ) to disapprove the DOL ’ s Independent Contractor regulation .
H . J . Res . 116 was reported out of the House Education and Workforce Committee on March 21 by a vote of 21 to 13 . CLDA sent a letter to Chairwoman Foxx of the House Education and Workforce Committee congratulating her for their leadership and positive action on this resolution .
CLDA joined with the Coalition for Workforce Innovation ( CWI ) to encourage Representatives and Senators to vote for the CRA resolutions in both the House and Senate when they come up for a vote . While we were able to secure several Democratic commitments to vote for the resolution in the House , we were not able to secure any firm commitments from Democratic or Independent Senators to vote for the resolution in the Senate . As a result , Ranking Member Cassidy is reluctant to call the resolution up for a vote in the Senate .
summer 2024 I customized logistics & delivery Magazine 9