Mountain States has partnered with Advancing American Freedom and more than 20 other groups to file an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in KC Transport v. Su. This case takes aim at a version of “Chevron deference,” a judicial doctrine you may already be familiar with from Mountain States’ amicus brief in Loper Bright v. Raimondo. But KC Transport tackles “Chevron deference” at “step 1.5”—when an agency believes that a statute gives it clear authority, but the federal court disagrees.
Case Background
KC Transport is a company in West Virginia that supplies trucking services to numerous industries, including coal-mining companies. But its trucks and its truck repair facility are most certainly not a coal mine, or so KC Transport thought. Enter the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) which oversees the safety regulations of mines and mining operators. MSHA, in an attempt to broaden its authority, decided that KC Transport’s truck repair facility was considered a “mine” because the trucks sometimes transport coal.
MSHA used this unreasonable logic to claim the authority to inspect the trucking facility as if it were a mine and claim alleged safety violations. KC Transport challenged the claim, contending that the statute that defined what is a “mine” was clear and did not include a truck repair facility. On the other side, MSHA agreed that the statute’s definition of “mine” was clear, but that it did include truck repair facilities.
Unfortunately, the federal appellate court decided to invoke “Chevron 1.5.”
The federal court decided MSHA was wrong about the statute, concluding that the statute was in fact ambiguous about what a mine is. However, instead of the court objectively determining what the statute meant, it sent the case back to MSHA with advice regarding how to re-interpret the statute. If MSHA’s new interpretation aligned with the findings of the federal court, it would defer to the new interpretation provided by MSHA. Thus, using “Chevron 1.5” the court tipped the scales in favor of the government agency.
The Constitution requires the federal courts determine the meaning of statutes and regulations. The court must objectively review the statute, interpret it, and apply it to the case before them. By applying “Chevron 1.5” the court failed in its duty and thus gave the agency a second chance at interpreting the regulation. This puts KC Transport in an unreasonable position by a court they were counting on to be impartial. At any step, “Chevron deference” unconstitutionally tips the scales in favor of the government agency. Simply put, this is not how the system is supposed to work, and it is not right.
So much for blind, impartial Lady Justice.
In our amicus brief with Advancing American Freedom, Mountain States made a clear statement regarding our interests in this case:
It is critical that our clients—the farmers, mineral-interest owners, ranchers, recreationists, and others—can rely on the judiciary when they get into disagreements with federal regulators about what this Nation’s laws allow or require. There is no room for…the judiciary to put its collective thumb on the scale in favor of the federal regulators and against our clients. Accordingly, Mountain States joins amici in this brief, urging the Court to…direct the lower courts to stop reflexively deferring to the federal regulators, whether through the so-called “Chevron Step One-and-a-Half doctrine” or otherwise.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
What’s at Stake?
MSHA’s expansive interpretation of what a “mine” is violates both common sense and the law. This will not be the last time a government agency tries to broaden the scope of its authority. And the federal courts’ tendency to automatically approve illegal agency action, with almost no thoughtful consideration, is troubling. Giving the agencies hints and a second chance on how to interpret statutes does not fulfill the courts’ duty to provide an objective interpretation of the law. We need an unbiased federal court, and we will continue fighting to make the courts do their constitutional duties.
Mountain States wants to ensure that KC Transport and our clients have an equal chance when challenging federal regulators’ interpretations of the statutes. The Constitution demands that federal regulators abide by the limits that Congress placed on the regulators’ authority and for the courts to neutrally interpret and apply those laws. Economic liberty, private property, and even the separation of powers is at stake when federal courts let regulators claim more power than Congress gave them. Mountain States will fight to ensure that our judicial process remains unbiased, and that agency authority remains in check.