-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today deeply concerned that the far-right majority on the Supreme Court is preparing to sow further chaos in our country.

Any day now, the Court is expected to rule on two cases pertaining to the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old doctrine with roots that go back to our country's founding that is critical to a functioning Federal Government.

The Chevron doctrine is pretty simple. It recognizes that Congress delegates authority to technical experts at Federal Agencies so that those Agencies can effectively and efficiently implement Federal laws in their areas of expertise in line with congressional intent. As a result, for nearly four decades, courts generally have deferred to reasonable interpretations by administrative Agencies where the law is unclear or ambiguous.

In fact, before 1984, lower court judges were criticized for overriding agency experts and imposing their own policy views. That is why the Court handed down the Chevron decision in the first place.

The Chevron doctrine was originally favored by conservative judges, including the conservative majority on the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration who viewed it as a check against judicial activism.

In recent years, however, many on the right have turned against the Chevron doctrine, viewing it as an impediment to their efforts to consolidate power and enable far-right judges to legislate from the bench.

Now the same far-right ideologues who fought to end Roe are all in for ending Chevron as well. Justice Gorsuch, one of the most outspoken critics of Chevron, has gone so far as to call for the Court to give the doctrine ``a tombstone no one can miss.'' The so-called Alliance Defending Freedom--the same group leading the charge to eliminate access to mifepristone, as approved by the FDA--has called for the Chevron doctrine to go, asserting without evidence that it allows Agency experts to ``impos[e] personal political agendas that Congress has not authorized.''

To be clear, this case is not about the so-called major question doctrine but about the sorts of day-to-day decisions that Federal Agency experts make when implementing law. Overturning Chevron would undermine these sorts of everyday decisions and, in doing so, jeopardize the regulatory system on which much of our country and our economy rests. It would empower the hundreds of individual Federal judges to overrule carefully considered rulemaking decisions by Agency experts, turning a consistent regulatory framework into a chaotic mess of conflicting opinions.

At its core, this case is about who should be making policy decisions on issues that affect our lives--subject matter experts or Federal judges. Who gets to determine the safety of the air we breathe-- environmental scientists at the EPA or Federal judges? Who decides whether or not a new drug is actually effective--doctors at the FDA or Federal judges? Who determines whether nursing homes are meeting safety standards--eldercare experts at HHS or Federal judges? With no disrespect to our Federal judges, they lack the expertise to make these kinds of decisions.

While Congress enacts legislation at a high level, it recognizes that the institutional capacity and expertise to implement legislation exists within executive Agencies. That is why our Federal Agencies exist--to implement informed, evidence-based regulations that provide a level of regulatory certainty and stability.

Eliminating Chevron now, after more than four decades, would sow chaos and confusion on Agency actions moving forward as well as the nearly 18,000 Federal cases that have been decided based on the Chevron doctrine. Even if the Court stops short of fully eliminating Chevron, significantly narrowing it will have much the same effect.

Overturning Chevron is yet one more component of the far-right's broader agenda to capture the courts, advance their conservative ideological agenda, and hollow out our regulatory system.

The Court will hand down a decision in this highly important case in a matter of days, and we will see whether this case becomes yet another cautionary tale for a Court that has been busy overturning decades of precedent, sowing chaos left, right, and center.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source