Chevron Challenged at SCOTUS | Oral arugment Attorney React

Review of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Facts of the Case
---

Facts of the case

A group of commercial fishermen who regularly participate in the Atlantic herring fishery sued the National Marine Fisheries Service after the Service promulgated a rule that required industry to fund at-sea monitoring programs at an estimated cost of $710 per day. The fisherman argued that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 did not authorize the Service to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedure.

The district court granted summary judgment for the government based on its reasonable interpretation of its authority and its adoption of the rule through the required notice-and-comment procedure. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

Question Presented
---

1. Does the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to promulgate a rule that would require industry to pay for at-sea monitoring programs?
2. Should the Court overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council or at least clarify whether statutory silence on controversial powers creates an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency?


Produced by Uncivil Law LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Become an UNCIVILIAN for 99 cents!: https://www.youtube.com/@uncivillaw/join
★☆★ CONTACT ME ★☆★ : https://linktr.ee/uncivillaw
Email uncivil law at ➜ [email protected]
Donate to uncivil law at ➜ https://tinyurl.com/4xufuebm

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

SwuM, Ben Belial - Reflect https://chll.to/672db1e8