Overview
Title
To provide for certain reforms pertaining to Chevron deference.
ELI5 AI
S. 4641, called the "Bureaucratic Overreach Review Act," is a plan to make sure that when government agencies explain the rules, they do it clearly and fairly. It wants these agencies to share why they chose to explain the rules the way they did, so everyone understands better and can see if the rules are being applied correctly.
Summary AI
S. 4641, known as the “Bureaucratic Overreach Review Act,” aims to reform practices related to Chevron deference, a legal principle where courts defer to a federal agency's interpretation of a law. The bill requires the Comptroller General to report on cases involving Chevron deference, detailing the impacts on private party interests. It also mandates federal agencies to review and publish their interpretations of statutes or rules in matters where Chevron deference was applied, offering more transparency and accountability.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
This bill, titled the "Bureaucratic Overreach Review Act," seeks to reform the practice of Chevron deference. Chevron deference is a judicial principle originating from the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. in 1984. This principle allows courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute when that statute is ambiguous, as long as the interpretation is reasonable. The bill primarily tasks the Comptroller General with reporting to Congress on cases where Chevron deference was applied and directs federal agencies to review and reassess their past interpretations influenced by this deference.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant concern is the requirement for a comprehensive report by the Comptroller General on Chevron cases. There are questions about whether this task might use government resources inefficiently, given the extensive existing literature on the subject. The criteria for identifying relevant legal matters are not clearly defined, which could result in inconsistencies in the report. Additionally, the 180-day timeframe for report submission might be too short, risking an incomplete or inaccurate outcome.
Further, the bill directs federal agencies to revisit past cases where they received Chevron deference. However, it lacks clarity on how agencies should decide whether to support, reverse, or modify their interpretations. Without clear guidelines, this process could result in erratic changes across agencies, impacting predictability and consistency in regulatory practices. Another point of concern is the administrative burden of conducting these reviews, as it may require significant resources without specified timelines for completion, potentially leading to delays.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill aims to reduce what some view as excessive deference to federal agencies, thereby promoting accountability and potentially curbing bureaucratic overreach. For the general public, this could mean greater clarity and consistency in how laws are applied and interpreted. However, the effectiveness of these reforms depends significantly on how well the tasks are executed, particularly concerning the GAO report's scope and the agencies' internal reviews.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federal Agencies: The agencies may face substantial administrative duties and resource allocation to comply with the bill's requirements. They are tasked with reviewing potentially decades of cases, which could strain their capabilities, slow down current operations, and require additional funding or personnel.
Private Parties and Businesses: For businesses and individuals interacting with federal agencies, these changes could lead to increased legal clarity and reduced uncertainty in regulatory environments. However, until agencies complete their reviews, there may be temporary confusion or fluctuating regulations, affecting stakeholders reliant on stable legal interpretations.
Legal Community and Academics: Lawyers and scholars have long debated Chevron deference. This legislation could invigorate discussions and studies on judicial review and agency authority, potentially reshaping legal education and practice surrounding administrative law.
Overall, while the "Bureaucratic Overreach Review Act" seeks to address specific concerns around Chevron deference by enhancing agency accountability, the practical implications will depend significantly on how effectively the outlined processes are implemented and managed.
Issues
The requirement for a GAO report on Chevron cases (Section 3) might lead to concerns about government resources being used for duplicative or unnecessary reporting tasks, given the substantial existing body of legal and academic work on Chevron deference. This could be seen as inefficient resource allocation.
The bill lacks clarity on the criteria required for identifying 'matters' where Chevron deference was implicated (Section 3), which might result in inconsistent interpretations, affecting the reliability of the report outcomes.
There's no explicit definition of 'private party interests' that were or would be impacted (Section 3), potentially leading to ambiguity in the GAO report's findings, which could affect stakeholders relying on the report.
The time frame for submission of the GAO report is set at 180 days (Section 3), which might be insufficient given the potential scope of the review, possibly compromising the thoroughness and accuracy of the report.
The directive for agencies to reassess interpretations may lack clarity on the criteria or guidelines they should follow when supporting, reversing, or modifying interpretations (Section 4). This could lead to inconsistent application across agencies, affecting regulatory predictability.
The requirement for agencies to conduct reviews of matters since the Chevron decision (Section 4) may involve significant resources and time, potentially leading to concerns about administrative burden and efficiency.
There is a lack of specificity regarding the timeline for when these agency reviews and reassessments should be completed (Section 4), which might lead to delays or non-compliance, impacting agency accountability.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act establishes its short title, allowing it to be officially referred to as the "Bureaucratic Overreach Review Act."
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the bill, several key terms are defined. "Matter" refers to cases before federal courts or proceedings involving federal agencies. "Chevron deference" describes how courts prioritally consider a federal agency's interpretation of a statute based on the Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. decision.
3. GAO report on Chevron cases Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Comptroller General of the United States to deliver a report to Congress within 180 days after the law is enacted. This report will list cases where Chevron deference, a principle that compels courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law, has been used, and it will analyze how these cases might affect private parties.
4. Agency predictability and accountability Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Federal agencies are required to review past cases where they received special consideration called "Chevron deference" since a 1984 Supreme Court decision. They must identify the involved rules and interpretations and then publish a memorandum determining if their interpretation should be supported, reversed, or modified.