Chevron CP - Michigan 7 2024 CFLMP

CP---Chevron---CFMLP
Chevron
Notes
You should probably ask in cross-x who does the plan. It’s ok if they’re vague, you just want it on the record that you tried.
Thank you to Parker, Kaitlyn, Maha, Maikle, Vishwa, and Nathan for their work on this. Please send comments, concerns, or questions to me.
I would rely heavily on the T file if I were aff for competition cards. That’s where the neg stuff came from.
Warming impacts abound. I trust you to find them.
1NC---OFF
The United States federal government should not [plan]
The United States [US Patent and Trademark Office or Copyright Office] ought to significantly enforce [plan minus the words significantly strengthen] based on agency interpretation of current intellectual property rights protection
The Supreme Court ought to
-rule that the lack [plan] renders federal law ambiguous
-not strike down the agency action
The CP re-establishes Chevron. Deference is a prerequisite to aff solvency.
Melissa Wasserman 13, Assistant Professor of Law and Richard W. and Marie L. Corman Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law. J.D., New York University School of Law, Ph.D., Princeton University. William. & Mary, “The Changing Guard of Patent Law: Chevron Deference for the PTO”, L. Rev. 1959 2012-2013.
Yet, as criticism toward the patent system has grown, so too have the challenges to this unusual power dynamic.6 An increasing number of commentators believe this lopsided institutional structure is the root cause of the patent system's systemic failures.7 [footnote 7 text: 7. See, e.g., John M. Golden, Patentable Subject Matter and Institutional Choice, 89 TEX. L. REV. 1041, 1075 (2011) (noting that courts have struggled with patentable subject matter inquiries and that the state of jurisprudence could be improved by granting the PTO rulemaking authority over patentable subject matter); Joseph Scott Miller, Substance, Procedure, and the Divided Patent Power, ADMIN. L. REV., Winter 2011, at 31 (arguing that the courts should take a more deferential approach in determining whether a rule is substantive or procedural, the result of which would leave the PTO with ample discretion to manage the prosecution process); Arti K. Rai, Engaging Facts and Policy: A Multi-Institutional Approach to Patent System Reform, 103 COLUM. L. REV. 1035, 1040 (2003) ("The ostensibly discrete problems of our patent institutions stem from an initial mistake in institutional design."); Sarah Tran, Administrative Law, Patents, and Distorted Rules, 80 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 831, 839-40 (2012) (arguing that the Federal Circuit's overly narrow view of the PTO's rule-making powers "has impeded innovation and the express goal of Article I of the U.S. Constitution to promote 'the Progress of Science and useful Arts"' (quoting U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8)); Wasserman, supra note 4, at 420-29 (arguing that the structural relationship between the PTO and the Federal Circuit has inflated the boundaries of patentability)./end footnote 7 text]. An even larger contingency of scholars support reforms that would shift greater power to the PTO.8 The cries for institutional reform culminated in 2011 when Congress enacted the historic LeahySmith America Invents Act (AIA).9 The AIA provided the first major overhaul to the patent system in sixty years and undeniably increased the stature of the PTO by granting the Agency a host of new responsibilities, such as fee-setting authority" and the ability to conduct new adjudicatory proceedings in which patent rights may be obtained or challenged.1' This Article contends, however, that commentators have generally failed to recognize the extent to which the AIA alters the fundamental power dynamic between the Federal Circuit and the PTO. Although scholars acknowledge that the AIA bestows a glut of new powers upon the Agency,12 they have nearly uniformly concluded that "Congress stopped short of allowing the PTO to interpret the core provisions of the Patent Act-those that affect the scope of what is patentable."'" Though Stuart Benjamin and Arti Rai have observed that certain congressional bestowals of adjudicatory authority may entitle the PTO's legal interpretations of the Patent Act to strong judicial deference,14 [footnote 14 text: 14. See Stuart Minor Benjamin & Arti K. Rai, Who's Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law, 95 GEO. L.J. 269, 327-28 (2007) ('The various postgrant review proceedings that have been proposed would be trial-type procedures on the record that bear the hallmarks of formal adjudication-most notably, a proceeding before an administrative judge at which the parties present evidence and cross-examination, with the judge's decision based on the record. Such proceedings would have sufficient formality to satisfy Meads test for application of Chevron deference. Thus, if Congress created these procedures and said nothing more, Chevron deference would seem to apply to them." (footnotes omitted)); Arti K. Rai, Essay, Patent Validity Across the Executive Branch: Ex Ante Foundations for Policy Development, 61 DUKE L.J. 1237, 1280 (2012) ("In fact, the executive branch could also use the postgrant-review authority conferred upon the PTO by the AIA to go one step further. As a doctrinal matter, under current Supreme Court precedent interpreting the contexts in which Chevron applies, the government could ask for Chevron deference toward decisions made in postgrant review proceedings."). However, neither of these articles analyzed the language of the AIA, applied or acknowledged the three-way circuit split on when formal adjudications are triggered, or performed any analysis of when a grant of formal adjudicatory authority carries the ability to speak with the force of law./end footnote text] this Article provides the first indepth exploration of whether the actual powers granted by the AIA would result in the PTO becoming the primary interpreter of the core patentability requirements. This Article concludes that the AIA rejects over two hundred years of court dominance in patent policy by anointing the PTO as the chief expositor of substantive patent law standards. In general, the patent system has historically suffered from a lack of serious engagement with administrative law,15 even though Supreme Court intervention in 1999 made clear that standard administrative law norms-including the Administrative Procedure Act-apply to the PTO. 16 Applying administrative law principles to the AIA provides that the PTO's legal interpretations of the Patent Act, as announced by its new adjudicatory proceedings, are entitled to the highly deferential standard of review articulated in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 7 As this Article argues, this deference is a normatively desirable outcome.18 Making the PTO the primary interpreter of the core patentability standards ushers the patent system into the modern administrative era, which has long recognized the deficiencies associated with judge-driven policy. 9 This provides the institutional foundation for infusing economic policy into the patent system, enabling the tailoring of patentability standards to advance the system's constitutionally mandated goal: the promotion of innovation.
Chevron key to effective regulation and solving the aff
Freeman 6/12
Freeman, Jody (Jody Freeman is the Archibald Cox Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and founder of the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program. She previously served as counselor for energy and climate change in the Obama White House.) 06-12-2024 A Key Court Ruling Could Weaken U.S. Environmental Protections - Yale E360 // PH
The U.S. Supreme Court today issued its opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overruling the Court’s seminal case on administrative agency deference, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court and Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissented. In the 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Court held that a court “may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by [the agency charged with administering the statute],” where the statute is ambiguous. The decision established a two-step test in which a court must first “assess whether the statutory language is ‘clear’ and, if so, give effect to the clear terms” and “if the statutory language is ‘silent or ambiguous,’ then—at step two—a court is prohibited from resolving the legal question itself as it would in any other case, and instead must defer to the agency’s interpretation.” But today’s opinion held that “courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous,” thereby definitively overruling Chevron. The ruling is not a surprise. In January of this year, oral arguments in the two cases that were granted challenging Chevron saw conservative justices’ questioning leaning largely in favor of scrapping the doctrine, while Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson pushed back on the petitioners’ arguments, predicting chaos, and the U.S. Solicitor General said overruling such a foundational doctrine would result in “endless litigation.” A group of herring fishermen first petitioned the High Court in November 2022 asking the Court to consider: 1) whether the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), which governs fishery management in federal waters and says that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can require vessels to carry federal observers onboard to enforce the agency’s regulations, also authorizes the NMFS to require that the vessels pay the salaries of those monitors; and 2) whether the Court should overrule Chevron. The Court ultimately granted the petition limited to question 2. The fishermen argued in their opening brief that ever since the Chevron decision, “judges, litigants, and scholars have struggled not only to apply Chevron, but to reconcile it with the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the historical record.” While it is on the books, the brief argued, administrative agencies will continue to abuse their power. Then, in October 2023, the Court added another case to its docket challenging Chevron, explaining that it would hear Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce in tandem with the Loper Bright case, since the two were almost identical. About 60 amicus briefs were filed in the Loper Bright case. In one joint brief filed by Patent and Trademark Attorneys, Agents, and Applicants for Restoration and Maintenance of Integrity in Government (PTAAARMIGAN) and US Inventor in support of neither party, the amici asked the Court to reaffirm Chevron deference but to clarify that it should only apply “when an agency acts within the substantive and procedural limits set by Congress.” The brief argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) often “promulgates regulations without the public participation and vetting required by the Administrative Procedure Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq., and Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.” Furthermore, when the Office has been challenged in the past on such moves, the agency uses Chevron as a cover, it said. “The USPTO’s neglect of rulemaking procedure leads to regulatory costs that exceed $ 1 billion per year,” added the brief, citing an article by the brief’s author, David Boundy of Potomac Law Group. Today’s opinion said that Chevron has not been the kind of stable rule required for courts to say what the law is but instead called it an “impediment” and “a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.” The Court said that the doctrine cannot be squared with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which “specifies that courts, not agencies, will decide ‘all relevant questions of law’ arising on review of agency action, §706 (emphasis added)—even those involving ambiguous laws—and set aside any such action inconsistent with the law as they interpret it.” In a concurring opinion written “to address why the proper application of the doctrine of stare decisis supports that course,” Justice Gorsuch said “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” In her dissent, Justice Kagan said the majority’s opinion “flips the script,” and that now a “rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.” IPWatchdog Founder and CEO said that Chevron was a “recipe for disaster” and that overruling it was the right move, but it is far from a sure thing that anything will change going forward. He explained: “As reasonable as the premise behind Chevron once was— namely to give front line agencies latitude to carry forward their mission— experience has demonstrated that agencies often abuse authority and seek to claim every opportunity to do whatever they wanted to do regardless of what Congress, the Judiciary, and basic concepts of checks and balances. In a nutshell, Chevron allowed agencies to fill the void abdicated by Congress and a Judiciary all too willing to refuse to engage in oversight. This was a recipe for disaster because too many agencies are controlled by political operatives and believers who are willing to allow the ends to justify the means, and willing to take every opportunity to expand their own power. Ultimately, Chevron provided cover for truly arbitrary and capricious decisions. The Administrative State will likely not go quietly into the night, so as important as this decision can be, the real question will be whether anything changes at all. If things do change as envisioned by this decision, much more will be required of Congress and the courts, and the petty political in-fighting and refusal to accomplish anything out of a fear of a primary challenger will need to be curtailed.” In terms of how the decision might affect IP owners in the near term, Will Milliken of Sterne Kessler said it could impact the USPTO’s decision to pursue the recently-issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on terminal disclaimer practice: ” “One concrete implication is that the PTO will not be able to rely on Chevron to justify the proposed rulemaking regarding terminal disclaimer practice,” Milliken said. “That rule has generated some controversy and may well be challenged if and when it is put into place. So, Loper does change the landscape of that potential dispute in a significant way.” As far as the impact of the decision on the cases at hand, Meredith Moore, Director of Ocean Conservancy’s Fish Conservation Program, issued the following statement: “Today, the Supreme Court clearly showed that this case was never just about fish. Instead, New England’s Atlantic herring fishery was used as a Trojan Horse to attack the foundations of good governance and resource management. The protections that keep our air and water clean, our homes and workplaces safe, and our communities, our children and ourselves healthy rely on the knowledge and experience of scientists and experts, and all that is now at risk. “Decades ago, American fisheries were on the brink of collapse, and what made recovery possible – what kept fishing communities in business and seafood on American dining room tables – was strong science-based management decisions rooted in data. This case jeopardizes our access to critical information about America’s fisheries, which is the exact opposite of what we need to handle the fast-growing impacts of climate change. “The Supreme Court’s decision opens the floodgates to litigation that will erode critical protections for people and the environment.”
What will it mean for policymaking on environmental and other issues, practically speaking, if the U.S. Supreme Court jettisons the Chevron doctrine?
This question is on the minds of legal observers and environmental advocates as they wait for the justices to decide two consolidated cases in which the court has been asked to overrule the famous precedent that has stood for four decades. That ruling, in the 1984 case Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, says that where Congress has not expressed itself clearly, leaving gaps or ambiguities in federal statutes, agencies should be allowed to adopt the interpretation they prefer, so long as that interpretation is reasonable.
The cases now before the Supreme Court — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce — were brought by commercial fishing groups challenging a National Marine Fisheries Service rule, and a decision is expected in the coming weeks. If the court decides to scrap the Chevron doctrine, it could have major implications for environmental policymaking and regulation on issues ranging from air pollution and climate change to clean water rules, public lands management, endangered species protection, and more.
Overturning Chevron would reduce government’s ability to respond to new scientific findings and technological developments.
There are two very different perspectives on the Chevron doctrine, which largely determine whether one thinks it ought to be overruled. Critics say that Chevron gives policymaking discretion to unaccountable agency bureaucrats, allows presidents to abuse their executive authority, and encourages members of Congress to shirk their legislative responsibilities. They charge that Chevron is “reliance-destroying” because it allows policy “flip-flops” between administrations and that it cannot be squared with the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision, which ruled that courts “say what the law is” and established the principle of judicial review. If one believes that there is always a single best answer to how to interpret a given statutory provision, and that a skilled enough legal interpreter can always produce that best answer, then overturning Chevron has some intuitive appeal. Why ever defer to an agency when judges can just decide?
Supporters of Chevron contest each of these claims. Congress inevitably leaves certain interpretive questions unresolved, they say, which means that some statutory provisions are capable of different understandings. And democratically elected presidents charged with executing the law are entitled to use this ambiguity to advance their policy preferences. (This is otherwise known as the “elections have consequences” argument.) They would note that agencies are amply accountable to multiple overseers and restricted by many legal, political, and institutional constraints. And they would reject the idea that Chevron is somehow responsible for legislative shirking or gridlock and point to House and Senate rules that make passing legislation exceedingly difficult, along with hyper-partisanship. While accepting that judicial review is legitimate and necessary, they would also say that nothing in the Constitution requires courts to decide all legal questions with no deference to expert regulators.
To the claim that there is one discernible “best” answer to every hard question of statutory interpretation, they would say no, sometimes Congress has not been clear (whether because political compromise requires some degree of unclarity; or because Congress is not prescient; or intentionally wishes to leave agencies room to adapt to change; or because of the limits of language), and there is more than one arguably best answer. From this point of view, Chevron is a sensible default rule of decision. It keeps courts from substituting their judgments for an agency’s — and that is how it should be, since the agency charged with day-to-day implementation will better know what is reasonable in the run-of-the-mill case.
I support the defense of Chevron, as my past writings have made clear. Overturning or enfeebling Chevron would have negative consequences. It would further concentrate power in the judiciary; reduce the government’s ability to respond to new scientifi

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.