Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — Primary elections in Utah have wound down and now it's on to the general election.
In the general election for attorney general, Derek Brown emerged as the Republican candidate after a three-way race. Rudy Bautista (Democratic), Andrew McCullough (Libertarian) and Michelle Quist (United Utah) all made their way onto the ballot via convention. Austin Hepworth is running as an unaffiliated candidate.
These candidates are vying to become the state's lawyer and whoever is elected will likely weigh in when there are newsworthy legal issues. So, the Deseret News asked each of the candidates what they thought about two of the most talked about Supreme Court rulings: Chevron deference and the immunity of former President Donald Trump.
In addition to these rulings, candidates were asked about Trump's guilty verdict handed down by a Manhattan jury as that issue was discussed during the Republican primary.
Here are their responses.
Utah AG candidates on Chevron ruling
Chevron deference was a legal doctrine that gave agencies discretion to interpret the law in cases where Congress was ambiguous or silent. It was overturned by the Supreme Court, which gives the power of interpretation back to the courts.
Derek Brown: When asked what he thinks about the ruling, Brown said, "I think it's about 40 years overdue. That's what I think. I think Chevron as a doctrine was unworkable from the moment it was passed."
Brown was effusive about Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion and said, "I love how he ended the case. He says that the true lesson is not that we are bound to respect Chevron's startling development, but bound to inter it." In other words, Brown said, Chevron was buried by the court because it was unworkable.
"Number one, it's unworkable because it's a continually shifting standard and it's a standard based on who is in the White House," said Brown as he paraphrased from the opinion. He pointed toward a matter dealing with broadband internet service where a rule was upheld under George W. Bush, but replaced under Barack Obama and then again replaced by Donald Trump and President Biden.
"What they've done is they have effectively stopped the whiplash and they said to Congress, 'It's time for you to do your job,'" said Brown, adding that conservatives were frustrated with Chevron from the start because it gave agencies powers they never believed they should have.
If elected, Brown said he would put together a Chevron working group to address federal overreach. He said he's been working with members of the Utah Legislature to identify areas where the state can push back for the benefit of Utahs naming the power plant rule as a specific example.
Brown mentioned land issues, mineral extraction, use of roads and grazing as other areas where the state could push back. He spoke about the work of Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill where she won a case after pushing back on a rule that impacted dishwashers. Brown said there are a number of small areas like that in the state that he would look at addressing.
In addition to working with state lawmakers, Brown said he would collaborate with other attorneys general. "But as a state, I want us to lead out on issues involving lands and energy because those are really the key issues that we face here in the West."
Michelle Quist: Quist said it's not surprising the court overturned Chevron. "What is surprising is the grandstanding taking place that the Loper Bright case has solved all of our federal regulation problems. In fact, the Court has simply transferred power from the executive branch to the judicial branch."
Saying it was ironic that conservatives praised Chevron in 1984 as a good response to "an overly active judiciary," Quist added, "As soon as a few courts confirm new regulations they don't like we'll start hearing about activist judges again."
"Chevron deference was used when a statute interpreting federal regulation is ambiguous — a court would defer to the reasonable interpretation provided by the agency," said Quist. "Now, instead, the courts will decide whether the proposed regulation was intended by Congress or not using traditional methods of statutory interpretation — arguably what should have been happening all along."
Quist said it's clear Congress hasn't done its job.
"Going forward, if Congress doesn't make it clear in each particular statute that an agency does or does not have regulatory authority, then our judges will be the ones making law," said Quist.
When asked about areas where the federal agencies may have overstepped, Quist quipped "light bulbs and shower water pressure."
"In all seriousness, Americans feel overregulated by the little things and most federal agencies fail to make the connection between the importance of the regulation to the public's general safety and well-being," said Quist.
Quist also said Congress can't be trusted to legislate better and Chevron will be harmful "if our health, environmental, food safety, and other agencies aren't able to persuade courts to keep or adopt reasonable regulations that protect the food we eat, the air we breathe, the toys we play with, the cars we drive, the roads we travel on, and our land from the waste that corporations create."
The bright side, Quist said, is there's now an incentive to settle the safety of Americans' daily lives.
