The Supreme Court has expanded its docket for the 2023-24 term with a second case that questions the landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The inclusion of the case, known as Relentless v. Department of Commerce, was announced among a list of orders released last Friday.
In addition to Relentless v. Department of Commerce, the court will hear oral argument in the priorly accepted case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in January. The remaining three cases granted on Friday will likely be argued later in the year. Both cases pertain to the same issue at heart, whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which states that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute as long as it is reasonable. However, the context of the challenges differ as they concern a federal rule requiring fishing boats to pay for federal monitors.
As pointed out by John Elwood in his column, the entirety of the bench will have the opportunity to deliberate on the Chevron question in the Relentless case, thanks to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson not recusing herself. Moreover, certain observations point toward a unique approach for the case, the court has in fact fast-tracked the Relentless case for consideration rather than wait for a ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
In the case of Nieves v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court ruled that if a plaintiff contends that their arrest was in retaliation for their constitutionally protected speech, they must prove that the police lacked probable cause for their arrest. However, an exception to this rule persists for situations where other individuals who did not engage in the same kind of protected speech were not arrested.
Gonzalez v. Trevino involeves an exploration into the exception established by Nieves. This case involves Sylvia Gonzalez, whose accusations of corruption against the city manager led to charges against her for violating a Texas law prohibiting the destruction or tampering with government documents. While she contends that the charges were retaliatory for her First Amendment protected speech, the Court of Appeals ruled that she needed to provide examples of individuals who had not been prosecuted under the same Texas law after mishandling a government petition.
The court granted an additional two cases and further details about them were covered by John Elwood in his column last Wednesday. More orders from last Friday’s conference are expected on Monday, Oct. 16, at 9:30 AM.