Hank Johnson: “Judicial review of final agency action is a hallmark of administrative law and is critical to ensuring that agency…”

“Judicial review of final agency action is a hallmark of administrative law and is critical to ensuring that agency action does not harm or adversely affect the public. But as the Supreme Court held in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., reviewing courts may only invalidate an agency action when it violates a constitutional provision or when an agency unreasonably exceeds its statutory authority as clearly expressed by Congress. For the past 30 years, this seminal decision has required deference to the substantive expertise and political accountability of Federal agencies. As the Court explained in Chevron: ``Federal judges--who have no constituency--have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public event are not judicial ones: `Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches.''' H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016, would eliminate this longstanding tradition of judicial deference to agencies' interpretation of statutes and rules by requiring courts to review agency action on a de novo basis. This misguided legislation is not the majority's first attempt to gum-up the rulemaking process through enhanced judicial review.…”