A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a previous 1984 ruling could potentially impact what rules should and should not govern your land when it comes to property rights, water rights, environmental rules, the use of eminent domain, and workplace safety.
Jeff McCoy, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, believes that the court’s 6-3 ruling in the case conversationally simplified as “Chevron” can help organizations like his have more success in proving government overreach beyond what laws allow.
“The issue is that a lot of times courts and judges wouldn’t do the hard work of interpreting the statute,” McCoy said of the years leading up to June’s Supreme Court ruling that overturned Chevron.
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council had for the past four decades allowed judges to defer to federal agencies when there was ambiguity about laws. Those agencies that enforced the statutes could then interpret any language that the courts ruled were unclear.
Unclear or outdated legislation could put courts in a bind where they may be left to determine lawmakers’ intent if it wasn’t clearly defined.
“Courts usually have to figure that out. They have to look at various resources,” McCoy said, “What do these words mean? Maybe what Congress intended with it. But under Chevron, a lot of the times the courts would just say, whatever the agency says goes.”
The original case involved Atlantic herring fishermen who sued because they didn’t believe that federal law authorized officials to create requirements that would force them to pay for independent monitors to watch over what they caught.
In other words, government overreach.
PLF has been involved with a case that it considers a long-standing incidence of government overreach with Arlen Foster, a South Dakota farmer who has fought with federal regulators for decades regarding an area of his property where snow melt collects.
Foster sued the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) because it had determined that the area where water sometimes pooled was considered a wetland.
That designation prevented him from using that portion of his land for his crops and to drain the standing water without risking access to USDA programs.
The NRCS initial determination for Foster’s property came in 2004. So, it’s been a long fight for Foster versus the NRCS.
McCoy sees increased hope for Foster and similar cases across the country because of the Supreme Court’s decision in overturning Chevron.
“The law is about the law,” McCoy said. “It can’t change at the whim of the people enforcing it. Congress passed laws. It meant something.”
RELATED: Landowner rights will be a key part of a referendum before South Dakota voters that was validated this week by the secretary of state’s office for the November 5th general election. It is a result of a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that would run through the state. Learn more about the ballot question in this South Dakota Searchlight story.
