A federal appellate court has ruled that a U.S. Department of Agriculture fine against Amazon for unlawful products be set aside, applying the Supreme Court’s recent opinion that erased a 40-year precedent directing judges to defer to executive agencies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit this month applied the justices’ ruling on the so-called Chevron deference, which called for judges to defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of laws whose details are unclear.
The case involved Amazon’s challenge to a $1 million fine issued by the USDA over unlawful meat products that had shipped from China to its San Francisco facility, as well as unlawful plants from Thailand.
“The Department makes an appeal for deference under the Chevron framework,” wrote Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Obama appointee. “The Supreme Court, however, recently overruled Chevron, holding that ‘courts need not and under the [Administrative Procedure Act] may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.’”
“That holding governs here and precludes us from deferring to the Department’s interpretation under the now-overruled Chevron framework,” Chief Judge Srinivasan wrote.
The USDA had fined Amazon under the Plant Protection Act and the Animal Health Protection Act, which says entities can be penalized if they “aid, abet, cause, or induce” the importing of unlawful products.
The D.C. Circuit’s decision puts that fine on hold and allows Amazon to contest it.
It marks one of the first resets of judicial authority over executive agencies since the high court issued its landmark ruling last month that ended Chevron deference.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling was rendered in a case brought by fishermen who were challenging a 2020 federal rule that required them to pay for federal agencies to monitor their catch.
The fishermen said the original law, as written, didn’t envision any such payment requirement and the Commerce Department was acting illegally in passing the compliance costs on to the privately owned boats. Lower courts had sided with the agency, citing Chevron’s deference.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the 1984 Chevron ruling got it wrong, muting Congress and pushing judges to defer rather than judge. He said it’s time to restore the judging.
The decision overturned precedent from Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., in which left-leaning groups attacked the Reagan administration’s environmental decision-making. The high court, at the time, said a court should defer to an executive agency when a law is unclear.
Critics of that decision had argued it created an ever-growing and powerful administrative state.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.