Supreme Court Considers Overturning Chevron Doctrine

The case, brought by commercial fishermen, challenges a rule requiring them to pay for monitors on their boats and questions the legal precedent of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases brought by commercial fishermen challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's interpretation of a federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Fisheries Service had issued a rule requiring fishermen to pay for professional observers or monitors on their boats, a cost the fishermen argue was never clearly intended by Congress.
The cases have drawn attention to the Chevron doctrine, a legal precedent that instructs courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
Many conservative groups and businesses support the fishermen, arguing that the Chevron doctrine gives too much power to unelected bureaucrats and should be overturned.
If the Supreme Court decides to overturn the Chevron doctrine, it could have far-reaching implications for federal regulations across various sectors.