The Supreme Court in Washington, Oct. 4.
Photo:
J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
While I agree with
Richard Epstein
and
Mario Loyola
that Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) was “disastrously wrong” (“The Supreme Court’s Chance to Rein In the Regulatory State,” op-ed Dec. 8), the court’s current inclination to depart from that decision may contribute to the perception that the court is too political.
Chevron was decided two-thirds of the way through a 24-year period that reversed Democratic electoral dominance at the presidential level, but not at the congressional level. The ruling paved the way for right-leaning Reagan administrators to “revise” the interpretation of longstanding statutes, most enacted by Democratic-controlled Congresses, without securing statutory change.
In 1992, however, the Republican “lock” on the Electoral College was broken, and in 1994, the Democratic “lock” on Congress was destroyed as well. Since then, Democrats have been ascendant in presidential elections, while Republicans have held a stronger hand in Congress.
Hence the newfound hostility of conservative jurists to Chevron may be seen not as a break from the 1980s, but a continuation of solicitude by conservative jurists for Republican political authority. A Republican-dominated court in 1984 adopted a doctrine favoring Republican-leaning administrations and weakening Democratic-leaning legislators; a Republican-dominated court in the 2020s now is inclined to reverse that doctrine, strengthening Republican-leaning lawmakers at the expense of Democratic-leaning administrations.
Prof. Stanley I. Langbein
University of Miami School of Law
Parkland, Fla.
Messrs. Epstein and Loyola make a compelling case that the court should return Chevron to its rightful place—as an eminent U.S. petroleum company, not a rule of thumb by which courts shirk their responsibility to declare what statutes mean when confronted with ambiguous words.
In an effort to secure majority support for legislation, lawmakers often insert imprecise and facially inoffensive language into statutes, knowing that like-minded agency officials will clarify the meaning, to their party’s liking, when regulations are later promulgated. But the best reading of statutes should always prevail over self-serving interpretations that unelected executive branch officials would prefer to read into them.
Administrations change and “plausible readings” of statutory terms can be retrofitted, one administration to the next, to achieve vastly different policy goals. A stamp of certainty by the courts promotes confidence on the part of people and industries affected by federal statutes that what’s lawful conduct one year will remain so after New Year’s Eve.
Steven Sarfatti
Cabin John, Md.
Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
