The Supreme Court is currently hearing significant cases regarding the authority of federal administrative agencies.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday repeatedly emphasized that the decision lies with them in a major dispute over the power of the federal administrative state.

The Executive Branch has the power to interpret and enforce laws in various areas, including the environment, health care, workplace safety, and consumer protections, but it is up to their discretion to do so.

The majority of conservative justices seemed prepared to restrict, but not completely abolish, the "Chevron" deference - a 1984 Supreme Court decision that holds that when federal laws are ambiguous, judges should generally defer to "reasonable" federal agency interpretations.

The Supreme Court has allowed broad authority to federal agencies, with over 70 cases citing a 170-page regulation, while the tension between maintaining the distinct powers of the three branches of government was central to the appeals.

The debate centers on whether the government's actions are excessive or necessary to safeguard federal agency supervision.

The justices' authority was questioned due to the lengthy arguments in two separate cases.

"What is the appropriate amount of deference, and how can we identify it? inquired Justice Clarence Thomas. "Where is the boundary?" he questioned."

Some conservative justices suggested the time to overturn the Chevron precedent was now.

"Justice Neil Gorsuch stated, "A dozen or more circuit judges have written asking us to overrule Chevron. If this is an indication that something needs to be fixed, and even the federal government cannot answer the question of what triggers ambiguity at the podium, then it is clear that there is a problem.""

Concern was raised by others on the bench that overturning the current system of agency statutory interpretation would put judges in an uncomfortable position of making policy, which is the responsibility of the political branches.

"Justice Elena Kagan posed a hypothetical question: "Is a new product designed to promote healthy cholesterol levels a dietary supplement or a drug?" She expressed her preference for HHS officials to determine the classification of the product."

"Judges should know what they don't know," added Kagan.

Two separate appeals were heard by the high court regarding the same issue: whether Atlantic herring fishermen are obligated to pay for federal officials to board their vessels to monitor catches and collect data.

In 2020, NOAA launched a program under a revised federal mandate, despite Congress not granting the agency specific authority to do so.

The owners of the herring fishing industry claim that the fees for monitoring their catch can exceed $700 per day, which often exceeds the revenue generated from catching low-priced herring. NOAA has temporarily suspended the rule, citing a shortage of funds to manage the monitoring program.

"Bill Bright, the owner of Loper Bright Enterprises, expressed concern that the lawsuit will make it harder for the seafood industry, as his company is among those suing. He stated that while they are survivors, the additional expense will not make it any easier."

Fishing fleets and business groups argue that their livelihoods are being endangered by regulations that were not explicitly authorized by Congress. They contend that judges, rather than federal bureaucrats, should be the ones to interpret the often ambiguous congressional statutes.

The lawyers representing small business people in arguments claimed that understanding the Chevron deference precedent requires a "secret decoder ring."

Gorsuch called it a "recipe for instability."

"Many lower court judges are troubled by this possibility," he stated. "A judge, acting independently, may deem the most just decision to be in favor of the immigrant, the veteran, and the Social Security Disability applicant. However, due to a fabricated statement about Congress' intentions when they were not considering the issue, the government always prevails."

Justice Kavanaugh suggested that the courts may be the more suitable venue to determine the ambiguity of federal laws enacted by Congress, given the political context.

"Chevron's administration brings in shocks to the system every four or eight years with new laws, including communications, securities, competition, and environmental laws, and constantly changes its stance."

The Biden administration contends that federal agencies possess the authority and competence to implement federal regulations to safeguard consumers and the public, including ensuring access to clean air and water, safe food and medication, and stable financial institutions.

The fishing industry has been subject to federal regulation for a long time, and the current rules ensure proper management of limited seafood stocks, as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar informed the court.

Some left-leaning justices agreed.

"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that the courts may become overly legislative if every undefined term in a statute is subject to litigation."

The justices posed challenging questions to both parties, hinting at a possible "course correction" in the form of a scaled-back ruling that would slightly favor the fishermen.

When Roberts said that granting the judiciary excessive power could be problematic, he elicited laughter in the courtroom.

"Judges are accustomed to making decisions and often believe that their final decision is the best and only solution."

In the cases of Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (22-1219) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (22-451), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of certain government regulations affecting the operations of businesses.

Rulings are expected by late June.