Constitution Requires Keeping Chevron, Not Overturning It, Says AFL-CIO

The AFL-CIO supports the government’s calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve Chevron, rather than overturn it, said the union’s amicus brief Friday (docket 22-451) in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The AFL-CIO believes the doctrine “is both a constitutionally permissible and practically necessary part of a functional system of government,” it said.

The AFL-CIO believes deference under Chevron “is consistent with and, indeed, required by the Constitution,” said its brief. Congress “may and often must legislate in broad terms and designate an agency to elaborate those terms in order to effectively exercise its authority under Article I,” it said. Congress’ instruction, “that an agency has discretion to elaborate the broad terms of a statute,” is part of what the law is, and thus “part of what the judicial branch has a duty to articulate and apply,” it said.

SCOTUS has recognized that the Constitution permits Congress “to do its job in an increasingly complex society via this necessary degree of delegation to agencies,” said the AFL-CIO’s brief. Congress properly designates agencies to elaborate the broad terms of statutes, “as such elaboration often involves a balancing of interests that is appropriate for the political branches, but not the judiciary,” it said.

Congress has “sound reasons” for designating an agency to elaborate the broad terms of a statute, said the brief. That includes “the promotion of uniform application of federal law and the development and utilization of subject matter expertise,” it said. Chevron didn’t create a “judicial rubber stamp,” it said. Courts have overturned agency actions under both prongs of Chevron, and SCOTUS “has developed a set of adjacent doctrines that further constrain agency action,” it said.

The union thinks overturning the doctrine “would unsettle decades of precedent, increase the workload of the federal courts, and dramatically increase partisan division in judicial decisions,” said the brief. Its fear is that that would further erode “public confidence in the courts,” it said.