The Chevron Debate Comes to Missouri
One of the biggest decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court last year was its decision in the Relentless vs. Department of Commerce case (and a related case) to overturn the Chevron doctrine.
I am not a lawyer, so I am going to keep this all very simple. As one legal blog explained it:
Under the Chevron doctrine, if Congress had not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.
This obviously puts a great deal of power into the hands of regulatory agencies. All they had to do in interpreting federal rules for regulatory purposes was not be insanely crazy, and courts would be required to defer to the agency’s judgement. These were glorious days for regulators. Unlike, say, now.
If you believe, like I do, that regulatory powers have expanded too far, then overturning Chevron was a strong move for individual liberty and is something to be celebrated.
But it is a federal case. We have our own regulatory issues in Missouri. That is why legislation has been introduced to apply these same changes to Missouri laws. As the summary of Senate Bill (SB) 221 explains:
This act modifies the standard for review for a state agency’s interpretation of statutes, rules, regulations, and other subregulatory documents. Specifically, a court or administrative hearing officer shall interpret the meaning and effect of such statutes, rules, regulations, and documents de novo, rather than de novo upon motion by a party if the action only involves the agency’s application of the law to the facts and does not involve administrative discretion. Further, after applying customary tools of interpretation, the court or officer shall exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty. [emphasis mine]
Right now, a state agency is suing a woman in St. Louis for practicing dentistry without a license. The question is whether installing tooth jewelry should require a dental license (which is, obviously, not easy to get). If Missouri’s Chevron legislation passes, the regulators in this instance would have to act more strictly under the law as written by the legislature and rely less on various interpretations of that law by the Missouri Dental Board, which, believe it or not, may be a bit biased. If this case goes to court, the judges will no longer have to just assume the dental board is correct.
I don’t know whether the person in question is practicing dentistry or not. I do know that a Missouri where the courts don’t automatically assume the regulatory agency is always correct is a freer Missouri, and that is something I want.
