Do General Authority Congressional Delegations of Authority to Prescribe Regulations to Carry Out the Provisions of the Statute Qualify for Loper Bright Deference? (11/12/24)

In Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp., 113 F.4th 364 (3rd Cir. 2024), CA3 here and GS here, the Court dealt with EPA pre-emption over state law labeling requirements. I won’t dive into the weeds on the substantive issue, but I focus on the Loper Bright issue of delegation of authority to the EPA to interpret—"fill up the details.” (See Slip Op. 27 n. 9, 113 F.4^th, at 381 n. 9):

Our analysis proceeds in three steps. First, in Part IV(A), we examine "EPA regulations that give content to FIFRA's misbranding standards."n9
   n9 The Supreme Court has recently overruled its decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), holding that "[c]ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority." Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, ___ U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2273, 219 L.Ed.2d 832 (2024). Prior to Loper Bright, courts might have owed deference to the EPA's interpretation of the statutory term "misbranding," but no more. Nonetheless, while Loper Bright requires courts, not agencies, to determine the meaning of statutory terms such as "misbranding," we do not read the decision to undermine the EPA's authority to promulgate the regulations that implement FIFRA. As the Court explained in Loper Bright, while courts alone must ascertain a statute's meaning, "the statute's meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion." Id. at 2263. And one way for statutes to express that meaning is when they "empower an agency to prescribe rules to `fill up the details' of a statutory scheme." Id. (quoting Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1, 43, 6 L.Ed. 253 (1825) ). FIFRA is such a statute: it expressly authorizes the EPA Administrator "to prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions" of the statute. 7 U.S.C. § 136w(a)(1). We therefore conclude that Loper Bright does not undermine the validity of the EPA regulations that govern pesticide labeling and that we consider in analyzing preemption under FIFRA in this opinion.

I focus on the enabling statute for Loper Bright agency authority to “fill up the details.” The statute quoted in part in the footnote excerpt above is 7 U.S.C. § 136w(a)(1), here, is in full:

(a)In general
(1)Regulations. The Administrator is authorized, in accordance with the procedure described in paragraph (2), to prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of this subchapter. Such regulations shall take into account the difference in concept and usage between various classes of pesticides, including public health pesticides, and differences in environmental risk and the appropriate data for evaluating such risk between agricultural, nonagricultural, and public health pesticides.

 In (a)(2), the EPA-specific procedure for the regulations is in addition to the procedures in the APA for notice and comment regulations; (a)(2) is not relevant to the balance of the discussion. (For the balance of this discussion, all  references to regulations will be to notice and comment regulations.)

It strikes me that the authorization in (a)(1) is parallel to the authorization in § 7805(a), here, which I also quote and bold-face the relevant language:

(a)Authorization. Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.

Perhaps the key difference is that § 7805(a) authorizes “rules and regulations” and 7 U.S.C. § 136w(a)(1) authorizes only “regulations.” In both cases, at least in terms of historical deference, regulations are required. So, the question raised—and by no means yet definitively answered—is whether § 7805(a) authorizes Treasury to “fill up the details” in the sense intended by Loper Bright. (For present purposes, I will call such authority to "fill up the details" as conferring deference entitlement to regulations issued under such authority and will call those regulations Loper Bright deference.)

Can § 7805(a) & (b) Be Read as Delegating to Treasury/IRS Interpretive Authority with Deference (7/14/24)

I recently updated a post on Corner Post. See Does Corner Post Permit § 2401(a)’s 6-year Statute of Limitation to Apply from Date of Regulation for Procedural Challenges? (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 7/10/24; 7/11/24), here. In the update (in red), I argued that the Corner Post holding was meaningless because Loper Bright compels that the best interpretation controls whether or not incorporated in a regulation (previously required for deference) and whether or not such a regulation was procedurally or substantively valid. So, whenever a court adjudicates, the best interpretation should now be applied from the effective date of the enacted statute.

One consequence of that for tax is that § 7805(b), here, is rendered meaningless unless, as I note here, there is a continuing role for deference. A reminder on what § 7805(b) does. From my Federal Tax Procedure Book 71 (2023.2 Practitioner Edition) (footnotes omitted and emphasis supplied), here:

          (1) if issued within 18 months of the date of the statute, then to “the date of the enactment” of the statute;

          (2) if issued later than 18 months, then the earliest of the following dates: (a) the date the final regulation was published; (b) the date on which any Proposed or Temporary Regulation was published; and (c) the date on which any notice substantially describes the contents of the expected Proposed, Temporary or Final Regulation;

          (3) if necessary “to prevent abuse,” with no limitation as to the date of retroactivity;

          (4) “to correct a procedural defect in the issuance of any prior regulation,” with no indication as to the date of retroactivity;

          (5) if “relating to internal Treasury Department policies, practices, or procedures,” with no limitation as to the date of retroactivity.

These are limitations on the regulations but not the interpretation. If the [Treasury] interpretation is the best interpretation of the statutory text, then perforce the interpretation will apply from the effective date of the statute (whether or not the interpretation is in a regulation). In other words, if the IRS [Treasury] were to include the interpretation in a regulation which violated the time limitations, that would not invalidate the interpretation or prevent the interpretation from applying from the effective date of the statute; it would just invalidate the regulation.