Amicus Brief: Brackeen v. Bernhardt
AMICUS BRIEF SUMMARY
This case is particularly important to NCLA. It is disappointed that three judges
on the Fifth Circuit would eschew their fundamental duty “to say what the law is” and
defer to agency interpretations of statutes under the Chevron doctrine. In doing so,
NCLA believes they departed from their duty as judges, denied the due process of law,
and undermined the confidence of the people in the courts.
Join the new civil liberties movement. Protect Americans from the Administrative State!
COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, en banc
DOCUMENT: (1) 18-11479; (2) 18-11479
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE: Philip Hamburger, Mark Chenoweth, Peggy Little, Aditya Dynar
FILED: (1) October 8, 2019; (2) January 7, 2020
January 7, 2020 | Brief of Amicus Curiae New Civil Liberties Alliance in Support of the Plaintiffs-Appellees on Rehearing En Banc
October 8, 2019 | Brief of Amicus Curiae New Civil Liberties Alliance in Support of the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc
January 7, 2020 | NCLA Asks Court to Not Abandon Its Duty of Independent Judgment in BIA Case Under Chevron Deference
Washington, DC (January 7, 2019) – The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus brief today with the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in support of plaintiffs-appellees in the case of Brackeen v. Bernhardt. NCLA is urging the full Fifth Circuit to call out the constitutional defects inherent in the Chevron judicial deference doctrine. Specifically, NCLA points out that judges violate Article III of the Constitution and their judicial oaths when they give Chevron deference instead of providing their independent judgment. Furthermore, judges violate the Due Process Clause when they favor a government litigant’s interpretation of the law over the interpretation of the other party in the case. In other words, Chad Brackeen and the other plaintiffs-appellees are denied a fair trial if the judge hearing their case employs Chevron deference in favor of the government.
In this case, Congress gave the federal agency (the Bureau of Indian Affairs) a 180-day window to issue regulations, but that was 36 years ago. Now the BIA thinks it can make law as it pleases, when it pleases. NCLA calls on the en banc Fifth Circuit to resist the siren song of Chevron.
NCLA released the following statements:
“Under the Chevron deference doctrine, three judges of the Fifth Circuit concluded that BIA’s decision to issue lame-duck regulations in 2016 some four decades too late was “reasonable.” That conclusion, which is hard to reconcile with logic or grammar, was possible only because of Chevron—a doctrine that requires judges to abandon their duty of independent judgment and acquiesce in the decisions of executive-branch agencies. We urge the full Fifth Circuit, which is rehearing the case en banc, to silence the panel’s out-of-tune paean to Chevron.” —Adi Dynar, NCLA Litigation Counsel
“This case presents a perfect opportunity for the Fifth Circuit to repudiate Chevron deference, a doctrine so ill-advised and violative of due process that it has been construed by courts and agencies to permit the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) latitude to write itself its own permission slip to issue regulations four decades after Congress’s grant of such authority lapsed. By repudiating Chevron, the Court will uphold its integrity as an independent and unbiased third branch of government ensuring that Americans enjoy due process of law.”
—Peggy Little, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel
NCLA is a nonprofit civil rights organization founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.