GOP Lawmakers Ask Treasury for Info in Wake of Chevron Decision
GOP Lawmakers Ask Treasury for Info in Wake of Chevron Decision
- AuthorsComer, Rep. JamesSmith, Rep. Jason
- Institutional AuthorsU.S. House of Representatives
- Subject Areas/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- Tax Analysts Document Number2024-19981
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2024 TNTG 132-232024 TNTF 132-13
Scalise Announces Committee Activity in Wake of Chevron Reversal
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) released the following statement announcing Committee activity in wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturning Chevron deference:
“Our Founding Fathers designed the American government with a key aspect to ensure a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government: the separation of powers. But since Chevron, U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., federal agencies have had free rein to interpret statutes and write rules in a way that expands their authority with few limits, allowing the administrative state to assume powers our founders intended for the Supreme Court and Congress. Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, that is no longer the case.
“With their ruling in this case, the Supreme Court restored proper constitutional separation of powers as our Founding Fathers intended by overturning Chevron deference and requiring the courts to decide disputes over interpretation of statutory text.
“This week, House Republican Committees are sending letters to their corresponding federal agencies to demand the review of various overreaching regulations in our fight to free the American people from the power-hungry administrative state. Agencies can't be allowed to run free without any checks on their power — we've already seen how frequently federal agencies will abuse their authority. We intend to ensure agencies are held accountable following the court's ruling and observe the proper checks on their power.”
Click here to view the letters House Republican Committees are sending to agencies.
July 10, 2024
The Honorable Janet Yellen
Secretary
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Secretary Yellen,
We write to call to your attention Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a recent Supreme Court decision that precludes courts from deferring to agency interpretations of the statutes they administer.1 In its decision, the Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which had allowed courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. By allowing such deference, the Court in Chevron upset the founders' careful separation of powers, permitting courts to abdicate the judicial role granted exclusively to them through Article III of the Constitution and enabling the Executive to usurp the legislative authority granted exclusively to Congress through Article I. Unsurprisingly, Chevron unleashed decades of successively broader, more costly and more invasive assertions of agency power over citizens' lives, liberty and property, as agencies adopted expansive interpretations of assertedly ambiguous statutes, demanding courts defer to them.
Perhaps no administration has gone as far as President Biden's sweeping and intrusive agency dictates on such questionable assertions of agency authority. The Biden Administration has promulgated far more major rules, imposing far more costs and paperwork burdens than either of its recent predecessor administrations.2 Many of these rules — such as those promulgated to impose President Biden's climate, energy and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) agendas — have been based on aggressive interpretations of statutes enacted by Congress years and even decades ago, before many issues against which the Biden administration has sought to deploy them were even imagined.
The expansive administrative state Chevron deference encouraged has undermined our system of government, overburdening our citizenry and threatening to overwhelm the founders' system of checks and balances. Thankfully, the Court in Loper Bright has now corrected its Chevron error, reaffirming that “'[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'” 603 U.S. at ___ (slip op. at 7-8) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)). This long-needed reversal should stem the vast tide of federal agencies' overreach. Given the Biden administration's track record, however, we are compelled to underscore the implications of Loper Bright and remind you of the limitations it has set on your authority.
As the committees of jurisdiction overseeing your agency, we assure you we will exercise our robust investigative and legislative powers not only to reassert forcefully our Article I responsibilities, but to ensure the Biden administration respects the limits placed on its authority by the Court's Loper Bright decision. Accordingly, to assist in this effort, please answer the following no later than August 7, 2024:
1. Please provide the following concerning agency legislative rules proposed or promulgated since January 20, 2021, identifying in each relevant listing the rule or rulemaking and agency statutory interpretation concerned:
a. A list of all pending judicial challenges to final agency rules that may be impacted by the Court's Loper Bright decision.
b. A list of all final agency rules not yet challenged in court that may be impacted by the Court's Loper Bright decision if they are so challenged.
c. A list of all pending agency rulemakings in which the agency is relying on an agency interpretation of statutory authority that might have been eligible for Chevron deference prior to the Court's decision in Loper Bright.
2. Please provide the following concerning agency adjudications initiated or completed since January 20, 2021, identifying in each relevant listing the adjudication and agency statutory interpretation concerned:
a. A list of all pending judicial challenges to final agency adjudications that may be impacted by the Court's Loper Bright decision.
b. A list of all final agency adjudications not yet challenged in court that may be impacted by the Court's Loper Bright decision if they are so challenged.
c. A list of all pending agency adjudications in which the agency is relying on an agency interpretation of statutory authority that might have been eligible for Chevron deference prior to the Court's decision in Loper Bright.
3. Please provide the following concerning enforcement actions brought by the agency in court since January 20, 2021, identifying in each relevant listing the agency statutory interpretation sought to be enforced:
a. A list of all pending enforcement actions in which the agency is relying on an agency interpretation of statutory authority that might have been eligible for Chevron deference prior to the Court's decision in Loper Bright.
b. A list of all concluded enforcement actions in which the court deferred under Chevron to an agency interpretation of statutory authority as a basis for its judgment against a non-agency party.
4. Please provide the following concerning agency interpretive rules proposed or issued since January 20, 2021, identifying in each relevant listing the statutory authority the rule interprets and the agency statutory interpretation set forth in the rule:
a. A list of all proposed or final agency guidance documents or other documents or statements of the agency containing interpretive rules likely to lead to —
i. an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more;
ii. a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local, or Tribal government agencies, or geographic regions; or
iii. significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, public health and safety, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
5. Please provide the following concerning judicial decisions in cases to which your agency has been a party since the Supreme Court issued its Chevron decision in 1984, identifying in each relevant listing the statutory authority the agency interpreted and the agency statutory interpretation upheld:
a. A list of all judicial decisions not ultimately overturned by a higher court in which the court deferred under Chevron to the agency's interpretation of a statute.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to receiving your response.
Sincerely,
Patrick T. McHenry
Chairman
House Financial Services Committee
James Comer
Chairman
House Oversight Committee
July 10, 2024
The Honorable Janet Yellen
Secretary
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220
Secretary Yellen:
We write to call to your attention Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a recent Supreme Court decision that precludes courts from deferring to agency interpretations of the statutes they administer.1 In its decision, the Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which had allowed courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. By allowing such deference, the Court in Chevron upset the founders’ careful separation of powers, permitting courts to abdicate the judicial role granted exclusively to them through Article III of the Constitution and enabling the Executive to usurp the legislative authority granted exclusively to Congress through Article I. Unsurprisingly, Chevron unleashed decades of successively broader, more costly and more invasive assertions of agency power over citizens’ lives, liberty and property, as agencies adopted expansive interpretations of assertedly ambiguous statutes, demanding courts defer to them.
Perhaps no administration has gone as far as President Biden’s to found sweeping and intrusive agency dictates on such questionable assertions of agency authority. The Biden Administration has promulgated far more major rules, imposing far more costs and paperwork burdens, than either of its recent predecessor administrations.2 Many of these rules—such as those promulgated to impose President Biden’s climate, energy and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) agendas—have been based on aggressive interpretations of statutes enacted by Congress years and even decades ago, before many issues against which the Biden administration has sought to deploy them were even imagined.
The expansive administrative state Chevron deference encouraged has undermined our system of government, overburdening our citizenry and threatening to overwhelm the founders’ system of checks and balances. Thankfully, the Court in Loper Bright has now corrected its Chevron error, reaffirming that “‘[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’” 603 U.S. at ___ (slip op. at 7-8) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)). This long-needed reversal should stem the vast tide of federal agencies’ overreach. Given the Biden administration’s track record, however, we are compelled to underscore the implications of Loper Bright and remind you of the limitations it has set on your authority.
As the committee of jurisdiction overseeing your agency, we assure you we will exercise our robust investigative and legislative powers not only to reassert forcefully our Article I responsibilities, but to ensure the Biden administration respects the limits placed on its authority by the Court’s Loper Bright decision. Accordingly, to assist in this effort, please answer the following no later than July 24, 2024:
1. Please provide the following concerning agency legislative rules proposed or promulgated since January 20, 2021, identifying in each relevant listing the rule or rulemaking and agency statutory interpretation concerned:
a. A list of all pending judicial challenges to final agency rules that may be impacted by the Court’s Loper Bright decision.
b. A list of all final agency rules not yet challenged in court that may be impacted by the Court’s Loper Bright decision if they are so challenged.
c. A list of all pending agency rulemakings in which the agency is relying on an agency interpretation of statutory authority that might have been eligible for Chevron deference prior to the Court’s decision in Loper Bright.
2. Please provide the following concerning agency adjudications initiated or completed since January 20, 2021, identifying in each relevant listing the adjudication and agency statutory interpretation concerned:
a. A list of all pending judicial challenges to final agency adjudications that may be impacted by the Court’s Loper Bright decision.
b. A list of all final agency adjudications not yet challenged in court that may be impacted by the Court’s Loper Bright decision if they are so challenged.
c. A list of all pending agency adjudications in which the agency is relying on an agency interpretation of statutory authority that might have been eligible for Chevron deference prior to the Court’s decision in Loper Bright.
3. Please provide the following concerning enforcement actions brought by the agency in court since January 20, 2021, identifying in each relevant listing the agency statutory interpretation sought to be enforced:
a. A list of all pending enforcement actions in which the agency is relying on an agency interpretation of statutory authority that might have been eligible for Chevron deference prior to the Court’s decision in Loper Bright.
b. A list of all concluded enforcement actions in which the court deferred under Chevron to an agency interpretation of statutory authority as a basis for its judgment against a non-agency party.
4. Please provide the following concerning agency interpretive rules proposed or issued since January 20, 2021, identifying in each relevant listing the statutory authority the rule interprets and the agency statutory interpretation set forth in the rule:
a. A list of all proposed or final agency guidance documents or other documents or statements of the agency containing interpretive rules likely to lead to—
i. an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more;
ii. a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local, or Tribal government agencies, or geographic regions; or
iii. significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, public health and safety, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
5. Please provide the following concerning judicial decisions in cases to which your agency has been a party since the Supreme Court issued its Chevron decision in 1984, identifying in each relevant listing the statutory authority the agency interpreted and the agency statutory interpretation upheld:
a. A list of all judicial decisions not ultimately overturned by a higher court in which the court deferred under Chevron to the agency’s interpretation of a statute.
Sincerely,
Jason Smith
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight
FOOTNOTES
1Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).
2See, e.g., Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Biden Administration's Failure to Consider Small Businesses: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Small Business, 118th Cong. (May 22, 2024) (statement of Dan Goldbeck, Director of Regulatory Policy, American Action Forum), available at https://www.americanactionforum.org/testimony/burdensome-regulations-examining-the-biden-administrations-failure-to-consider-small-businesses/
1Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).
2See, e.g., Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Biden Administration’s Failure to Consider Small Businesses: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Small Business, 118th Cong. (May 22, 2024) (statement of Dan Goldbeck, Director of Regulatory Policy, American Action Forum), available at https://www.americanactionforum.org/testimony/burdensome-regulations-examining-the-biden-administrations-failure-to-consider-small-businesses/
END FOOTNOTES
- AuthorsComer, Rep. JamesSmith, Rep. Jason
- Institutional AuthorsU.S. House of Representatives
- Subject Areas/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- Tax Analysts Document Number2024-19981
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2024 TNTG 132-232024 TNTF 132-13
