Amicus brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence submitted.

0.32 MB·English

by  U.S. Supreme Court via USA TODAY's big_cases bot

i

No. 18-15
In the
Supreme Court of the United States

JAMES L. KISOR,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT L. WILKIE,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CENTER
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

RIDDHI DASGUPTA JOHN C. EASTMAN
13330 Ridgewood Drive ANTHONY T. CASO
Ellicott City, MD 21042 Counsel of Record
[phone] Center for Constitutional
[email protected] Jurisprudence
c/o Chapman University
Dale E. Fowler School of Law
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866
[phone]
[email protected]

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
i

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.,
325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452
(1997), should be overruled.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED.......................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3
I. Separation of Powers Is One of the Most
Important Structural Features of the
Constitutional Design to Protect Liberty. .............. 3
II. Seminole Rock and Auer Deference Violate the
Separation of Powers. .................................................. 7
III.Auer and Seminole Rock May be Overruled
Consistent with Traditional Stare Decisis
Principles. .................................................................... 14
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 17
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Agostini v. Felton,
521 U.S. 203 (1997) ................................................ 16
Auer v. Robbins,
519 U.S. 452 (1997) ........................................ passim
Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.,
325 U.S. 410 (1945) ........................................ passim
Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1 (1976) ...................................................... 7
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837 (1984) ................................ 2, 10, 12, 14
Christensen v. Harris Cty.,
529 U.S. 576 (2000) ................................................ 15
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham,
567 U.S. 2156 (2012) .......................................... 1, 15
Decatur v. Paulding,
39 U.S. 497 (1840) .................................................. 15
Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr.,
568 U.S. 597 (2013) ...................................... 4, 14, 17
Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. R.R.,
135 S. Ct. 1225 (2015) .............................................. 1
FCC v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.,
439 U.S. 980 (1978) .................................................. 9
Garco Const., Inc. v. Speer,
138 S.Ct. 1052 (2018) ........................................... 1, 3
Gonzales v. Oregon,
546 U.S. 243 (2006) ................................................ 15
iv

INS v. Chadha,
462 U.S. 919 (1983) .................................. 6, 7, 16, 17
Janus v. Am. Federation of State, Cty., and Mun.
Employees, Council 31,
138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018) ....................................... 14, 15
Kilbourn v. Thompson,
103 U.S. 168 (1880) .................................................. 7
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. 137 (1803) ...................................... 2, 8, 11, 12
Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC,
497 U.S. 547 (1990) .................................................. 9
Miller v. Johnson,
515 U.S. 900 (1995) .......................................... 12, 15
Mistretta v. United States,
488 U.S. 361 (1989) .............................................. 7, 8
Morrison v. Olson,
487 U.S. 654 (1988) .............................................. 5, 9
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29 (1983) .................................................. 11
National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v.
Brand X Internet Services,
545 U.S. 967 (2005) ................................................ 10
Pearson v. Callahan,
555 U.S. 223 (2009) ................................................ 14
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199
(2015) ................................................................ 1, 3, 4
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,
514 U.S. 211 (1995) .................................. 3, 5, 10, 16
v

Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express,
Inc.,
490 U.S. 477 (1989) ................................................ 15
Springer v. Philippine Islands,
277 U.S. 189 (1928) .................................................. 8
Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co.,
564 U.S. 50 (2011) .............................................. 4, 15
Turtle Island Restoration Network v. United States
Dep’t of Commerce,
878 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................. 14
United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC,
825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ................................ 11
United States v. Klein,
13 Wall. 128 (1872) .................................................. 9
United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683 (1974) ............................................ 8, 12
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Bible,
136 S.Ct. 1607 (2016) ............................................... 3
Other Authorities
Adams, John, Letter XLIX, 1 A DEFENSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (The Lawbook Exchange Ltd.
3rd ed., 2001) ............................................................ 7
Blackstone, William, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF
ENGLAND (William S. Hein & Co. ed., 1992) ..... 5, 12
Brutus, Essay XV (1788), reprinted in 2 THE
COMPLETE ANTI-FEDERALIST (Herbert J. Storing
ed. 1981) ................................................................... 6
Hamilton, Alexander, Federalist 70, THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS .................................................................... 10
vi

Hamilton, Alexander, Federalist 9, THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS ...................................................................... 5
Jefferson, Thomas, Jefferson to Adams, THE ADAMS-
JEFFERSON LETTERS (Lester J. Cappon ed., 1959) .. 5
Locke, John, THE SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT
(Thomas P. Peardon, ed.,1997)................................ 5
Madison James, Federalist 47, THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS .................................................................. 2, 5
Madison, James, Federalist 48, THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS ...................................................................... 6
Madison, James, Federalist 51, THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS ........................................................ 5, 7, 8, 12
Manning, John F., “Constitutional Structure and
Judicial Deference to Agency Interpretations of
Agency Rules,” 96 Colum. L. Rev. 612 (1996) ..... 4, 8
Montesquieu, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS (Franz
Neumann ed. & Thomas Nugent trans., 1949) ...... 5
Philip Hamburger, IS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
UNLAWFUL? 294 (2014) .......................................... 15
Rules
Sup. Ct. Rule 37.3(a) ................................................... 1
Sup. Ct. Rule 37.6 ........................................................ 1
1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is the
public interest law arm of the Claremont Institute,
whose stated mission is to restore the principles of the
American founding to their rightful and preeminent
authority in our national life, including the funda-
mental separation of powers principles implicated by
this case. The Center has previously appeared before
this Court as amicus curiae in several cases address-
ing similar separation of powers issues, including
Garco Const., Inc. v. Speer, 138 S.Ct. 1052 (2018) (cert.
denied); Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. R.R., 135 S.
Ct. 1225 (2015); Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 135
S. Ct. 1199 (2015); and Christopher v. SmithKline Bee-
cham, 567 U.S. 2156 (2012).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case asks whether the Constitution’s text and
structure, specifically its separation of powers princi-
ples, require or permit courts to defer to a federal ad-
ministrative agency’s interpretation of its own ambig-
uous regulations. In fact, that interpretive authority
belongs primarily to the judiciary because “the preser-
vation of liberty requires that the three great depart-
ments of power should be separate and distinct;” and
because, concomitantly, the agencies’ interpretation
of their own regulations is a usurpation of the judicial

1 Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.3(a), this amicus brief is filed
with the consent of the parties. Pursuant to Rule 37.6, Amicus
Curiae affirms that no counsel for any party authored this brief
in whole or in part and that no person or entity other than Ami-
cus Curiae, its members, or its counsel made a monetary contri-
bution to fund the preparation and submission of this brief.
2

prerogative. James Madison, Federalist 47, THE FED-
ERALIST PAPERS 298 (Charles R. Kesler and Clinton
Rossiter, eds., 2003).
The doctrine of deference to an agency’s interpre-
tation of its own regulations, first announced in
Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410
(1945), and ossified in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452
(1997), violates standard separation of powers princi-
ples. Those principles are derived from the three
Vesting Clauses of the Constitution allocating the lim-
ited national government’s powers to a Congress, a
President, and a judiciary. Deferring to an agency’s
interpretation of its own regulations is no less inde-
fensible than deferring to Congress about the mean-
ing of statutes would be. It is also a recipe for post-
hoc agency gamesmanship to ensure the regulator
generally wins over the regulated, the governor over
the governed. This is not the scheme of separated
powers the Framers envisioned.
Furthermore, by misallocating judicial power and
thus threatening individual liberty, Auer exacerbates
the extant problem of delegation of lawmaking powers
to unelected executive officials. That delegation al-
ready is at the constitutional breaking point under
step two of the Chevron doctrine. Chevron, U.S.A.,
Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-
43 (1984). Auer also deprives the judiciary of its con-
stitutionally-ensconced and rightful authority to in-
terpret the laws, an authority this Court has recog-
nized for the past 215 years. See Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803) (“It is emphatically the province
and duty of the judicial department to say what the
law is.”). Several members of this Court have in re-
cent years acknowledged the constitutional problems
3

with the Auer deference doctrine, and the doctrine
should now be overruled.
ARGUMENT
I. Separation of Powers Is One of the Most Im-
portant Structural Features of the Consti-
tutional Design to Protect Liberty.
Essential for the preservation of individual liberty,
the Constitution’s separation of powers is “a struc-
tural safeguard rather than a remedy to be applied
only when specific harm, or risk of specific harm, can
be identified.” Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514
U.S. 211, 239 (1995) (emphasis in original). It is “a
prophylactic device, establishing high walls and clear
distinctions because low walls and vague distinctions
will not be judicially defensible in the heat of inter-
branch conflict.” Id.
Several members of this Court have recognized
that various doctrines of deference to the unelected,
unaccountable, and largely-unknown federal bureau-
cracy might be difficult to reconcile with the separa-
tion of powers’ “high walls.” Id. In particular, mem-
bers of this Court believe that Auer deference is on its
“last gasp.” Garco Const., Inc., 138 S.Ct. at 1053
(Thomas, J., joined by Gorsuch, J., dissenting from de-
nial of certiorari); id. at 1052 (“Seminole Rock defer-
ence is constitutionally suspect.”); United Student Aid
Funds, Inc. v. Bible, 136 S.Ct. 1607, 1608 (2016)
(Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
Even Auer’s author rejected the doctrine. See Perez v.
Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1213 (2015)
(Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (announcing that
he would be “abandoning” the holding in Auer that he
himself authored); Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 568