Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce (22-1219)

argument 22-1219

Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce

Supreme Court of the United States 2h 11m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why does the petitioner argue that Chevron violates the Constitution?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case twenty two twelve nineteen, relentless versus the Department of Commerce. Mr. Martinez?

Ryan D. Martinez 0:08

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. For too long, Chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation. It should be overruled for three reasons. First, Chevron violates the Constitution. Article three empowers judges to say what the law is. It requires them to interpret Federal statutes using their best and independent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reallocates interpretive authority from courts to agencies and it forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons. In doing so, Chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of Congress. It mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach, and by removing key checks on executive power, it threatens individual liberty.

Ryan D. Martinez 0:58

Chevron also violates the APA. The most straightforward reading of Section seven hundred oh six requires de novo review of legal questions. Congress put constitutional and statutory interpretation on equal footing and it required independent legal judgment as to both. As Justice Scalia wrote, the APA's text contemplates that courts, not agencies, will authoritatively resolve ambiguities in statutes. And third, This court's only justification for Chevron is the implied delegation theory. But that theory is a fiction. There's no reason to think that Congress intends every ambiguity and every agency statute to give agencies an ongoing power to interpret and reinterpret federal law in ways that override its best meaning.

Ryan D. Martinez 1:44

In this case, the agency misinterpreted the MSA to force struggling fishermen to pay up to 20 percent of their annual profits to Federal agents. The government says that even if all nine of you agree with us that the agency's construction is worse than ours You should nonetheless defer to that construction and uphold their programme under Chevron. That's not consistent with the rule of law. If we have the best view of the statute, we should win this case. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:16

Ah, Mister Martinez, how much deference is uh intention with the judicial role.

Ryan D. Martinez 2:24

I think it's very much intention, Your Honor.

Clarence Thomas 2:26

How much would it require? I mean your argument is that Chevron deference is problematic, but how do we determine how much deference is too much deference?

Ryan D. Martinez 2:36

I think you've certainly crossed the line when you have a rule that says that we're going to allocate interpretive authority from from Article three courts to an agency. And so when when you've got deference that amounts to that, which is what Chevron deference is, then I think you've you have crossed the line. Because what you have really done is

Clarence Thomas 2:53

what I'm tr what I'm asking is how do we know where the line is? We uh show deference. You uh There's skidmore deference. Uh we are deferential in fact finding, et cetera. So I'm just trying to determine uh whether uh you're saying that we i if it's not de novo review uh without any presumptions or deference, then it's problematic.

Ryan D. Martinez 3:19

I think deference becomes problematic when it requires a judge to say that the law means X, when really the judge thinks the law means Y. I think Skidmore deference is not problematic because it doesn't require that. Skidmore deference essentially says, and and we would be very comfortable with Skidmore, that because the agency has a has an important role to play in the process, often the agency has helped draft the statute. The agency has knowledge of the policy context. surrounding the statute and its implementation, of course courts should pay special attention to what agencies say, but the agency ultimately has to bring its expertise to bear in a way that's persuasive. And if the co court isn't persuasive, if the court thinks that the law means X even though the agency thinks the law means Y, then the Court needs to go with the best interpretation of the statute, just like it does in every other area of statutory or constitutional interpretation.