The Supreme Court is set to rule on significant cases concerning the authority of federal administrative agencies.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on a matter that may significantly limit the authority of executive agencies to interpret and execute federal laws.

The debate centers on whether the government's actions are excessive or necessary to safeguard various domains, including the environment, health, safety in the workplace, and consumer rights.

The oral arguments will commence at 10 a.m. and may continue until 1 p.m. It is anticipated that judgments will be issued by the end of June.

Two separate appeals concerning the same issue will be heard by the justices: 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 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.

For four decades, the high court has upheld the broad discretion of federal agencies, following the precedent set in the 1984 case of Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC.

Fishing fleets and business groups argue that their livelihoods are being endangered by costly, burdensome 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 language of congressional statutes.

An attorney, Paul Clement, stated that Chevron has been proven unworkable and its corrosive effects on our separation of powers have persisted for too long. The government's attempts to retain this misguided and dependency-destroying doctrine are inadequate.

The views of Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett could determine whether Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch's advocacy for scaling back Chevron deference is successful.

The Biden administration will contend that federal agencies possess the authority and competence to implement federal regulations to safeguard consumers and the public, including access to clean air and water, secure food and medications, and stable financial and economic systems.

The Justice Department asserts that the fishing industry has been subject to federal regulation for a long time and that the current regulations are necessary for the proper management of limited seafood stocks.

"Stare decisis principles heavily favor adhering to Chevron, a cornerstone of administrative law reflected in thousands of judicial decisions for 40 years, as Congress has declined to alter or eliminate the Chevron framework, entitling it to the particularly strong form of stare decisis that this court affords to decisions that Congress could override by legislation. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar will argue both appeals on Wednesday."

If the executive branch were unable to enforce thousands of regulations and plaintiffs could sue over minor changes to existing rules, chaos would result, according to supporters.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has recused from the second case, known as Loper Bright, as she heard it when it was before a federal appeals court. However, she will sit on the bench for the first argued case known as Relentless, the name of one of the Rhode Island boats.

Wednesday, Jan. 17, 10 a.m.

EXECUTIVE POWER: Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (22-1219)

The Supreme Court is considering potential far-reaching appeals over a legal effort to overturn the "Chevron" deference, which gives federal executive agencies broad discretion to interpret and enforce policies enacted by Congress. The case involves challenges to a federal mandate requiring Atlantic herring fishermen to pay more than $700 per day for monitors to ride their boats, observe their activities, and report to the government. The fishermen argue that Congress never granted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the authority to force fishermen to pay for monitors. Justice Jackson recused in Loper Bright but will participate in Relentless.

11 a.m.

EXECUTIVE POWER: Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo (22-451)

The Supreme Court is considering potential far-reaching appeals to overturn the "Chevron" deference, which gives federal executive agencies broad discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous policies enacted by Congress. Both cases involve challenges to a federal mandate requiring Atlantic herring fishermen to carry inspectors on their boats, which the National Marine Fisheries Service recently interpreted to mean they must also pay for compliance monitoring. The fishermen argue that Congress never granted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the authority to force them to spend $700 per day, which is roughly 20-percent of their revenue, for third-party observers. Justice Jackson recused in Loper Bright but will participate in Relentless.