The Big Dig Presents: Catching The Codfather – Bonus Episode: Have we entered a new era for government regulation? (March 25, 2026)

Overview

In this special bonus episode of Catching the Codfather, host Ian Coss explores the seismic shift in federal government regulation brought about by the Supreme Court's 2024 decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine. Featuring an in-depth interview with John Vecchione, a key litigator in the companion Relentless case, the episode traces how a group of New England fishermen set in motion a Supreme Court-level challenge with national repercussions. The discussion unpacks the legal history of Chevron deference, why the fishing cases became the vehicle for dismantling it, and what the post-Chevron landscape means for government agencies, the courts, Congress, and individuals. Along the way, the episode offers insight into power, law, and who really decides the rules that govern work, industry, and the environment.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. How Fishermen Brought Down Chevron

• Background of Cases ([02:02]–[11:01]):
  • John Vecchione explains his involvement: first representing David Gaethel, a New England fisherman challenging NOAA's rules requiring fishermen to pay for government observers on their boats. Original case was dismissed due to a missed statute of limitations, but Congress later appropriated funds to cover observers for groundfish.
  • The emotional resonance of small business fishermen was deliberately chosen. As Vecchione puts it, “If you really want to capture the imagination of the public and of the jurists, it helps to have a situation that seems so unjust and crazy.” ([09:03]–[09:46])
• Relentless & Loper Bright Cases ([10:15]–[12:21]):
  • Vecchione describes how two cases (Relentless and Loper Bright), filed in different appellate circuits, sought a “circuit split” to attract Supreme Court review.
  • The cases challenged the core of Chevron deference, which historically tilted court rulings in favor of agencies when statutory language was ambiguous.

2. Understanding Chevron Deference

• Chevron’s Impact ([13:24]–[17:30]):

  • Chevron gave agencies significant leeway; courts would defer to “reasonable” interpretations of statute ambiguities.
  • Used to expedite overwhelmed district court dockets and cited in cases “more than any other case than Marbury vs. Madison.” ([15:01])
  • Law could "turn 180 degrees" from administration to administration — a major frustration for consistency and predictability in law.

• Why Use the Fishing Cases? ([08:16]–[09:46])

  • Host and guest joke about choosing relatable, sympathetic plaintiffs: “I think what I'm trying to say is it's hell. Yes.” (Vecchione, [09:46])

3. Supreme Court Dynamics & Overturning Chevron

• How the Supreme Court Took Both Cases ([19:54]–[21:25]):

  • Because Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had to recuse from Loper Bright (after sitting on an earlier panel), Relentless was also taken up to allow all nine justices to participate.
  • Vecchione recalls learning the case would be heard: “I was just absolutely over the moon. My client, I was over the moon.” ([21:28])

• At the Oral Arguments ([22:17]–[23:42]):

  • Vecchione describes Gorsuch as “very offended by what Chevron had wrought,” while justices from the liberal wing emphasized agency expertise.
  • “It was not a question of counting fish. It was a question of who's going to pay for the guys who count the fish. Which is not really an expertise thing.” ([23:30])

4. The Post-Chevron Landscape

• Immediate Judicial Effects ([25:19]–[28:17]):

  • Odds of defeating an agency in court have improved from 10% to about 40%, but agencies still win most cases.
  • Courts are reluctant to overturn longstanding (original) regulations, granting implicit respect for bureaucratic continuity.

• Examples of Post-Chevron Litigation ([28:26]–[32:28]):

  • McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson: Supreme Court rejects agency's narrow interpretation of what counts as a “fax,” allowing email-fax recipients to sue. “That case was worth hundreds of millions of dollars.” ([30:10])
  • Chamber of Commerce v. FTC: Court overturns new, more costly FTC paperwork requirements due to lack of clear statutory authority.

• Effects on the Executive Branch ([32:28]–[35:18]):

  • Agencies now must write rules more carefully, using clearer statutory authority.
  • Administration finds its hands tied compared to the pre-Chevron era — especially in areas like tariffs.

• Congressional Response ([35:18]–[37:28]):

  • Some in Congress are eager to write clearer, more detailed laws. However, “this is the least active lawmaking Congress that I can ever remember.” ([35:54])
  • Political gridlock and executive dominance mean little new major legislation is passing to clarify statutes.

• Who is Empowered Now? ([37:53]–[38:36]):

  • “It empowers the individual American... because just like my fishermen and Loper Bright fishermen, they had no chance before... but now... you just have a much wider [chance].” ([37:53])

5. The Fate of the Fishermen & What's Next

• Current Status of Fishermen's Cases ([38:36]–[41:21]):

  • Loper Bright: Settlement talks ongoing, rule held in abeyance.
  • Relentless: Lost at district level post-Chevron, appeal ongoing. Regulation is blocked in practice.

• Quirky Endnote: ([40:27]–[40:45])

  • The required payments for observers have not occurred because quotas for herring are now so low.

• Upcoming Litigation ([41:21]–[42:27]):

  • Vecchione eyeing challenges to presidential tariff authority and SEC surveillance powers as next major frontiers for the post-Chevron regime.

Notable Quotes

• “If you really want to capture the imagination of the public and of the jurists, it helps to have a situation that seems so unjust and crazy.” – John Vecchione ([09:03])
• “Chevron cited more than any other case than Marbury vs Madison. That gives you how. How much the courts relied on it and agencies relied on it.” – John Vecchione ([15:01])
• “Regulation, administrative law is this kind of nebulous area that sits between the three branches of government... In theory, Congress makes laws, but really Congress doesn't have the attention span and capacity to truly roll up their sleeves and write every nitty gritty detail and rule of life.” – Ian Coss ([17:30])
• “I just don't think it's been a disaster. Because what we've also seen is that... regulations are being upheld all the time. They're just regulations that hew a little closer to the statute, which I don't think's a bad thing.” – John Vecchione ([32:00])
• “Congress has asked me. I've spoken twice to various congressional committees on what l' approbriety is and what kind of language they should be using in statutes. There is a hunger to know how to legislate on these issues and how to make things clear.” – John Vecchione ([35:25])
• “It empowers the individual American... because just like my fishermen and Loper Bright fishermen, they had no chance before.” – John Vecchione ([37:53])

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:02] John Vecchione’s entry into fishing litigation and the observer rule backstory
• [08:16] The rationale for choosing fishermen as plaintiffs
• [10:15] Birth of the Relentless and Loper Bright cases
• [13:24] How Chevron deference shaped federal regulation for decades
• [19:54] How the Supreme Court took both cases (and the Ketanji Brown Jackson recusal issue)
• [22:17] Supreme Court oral argument scene and dynamics
• [25:19] The post-Chevron world: court cases and practical impacts
• [28:26] Examples of regulations challenged post-Chevron
• [32:28] Executive branch response under the new regime
• [35:18] Congressional confusion and inertia
• [37:53] Empowerment of individuals and the limits of judicial reform
• [38:36] Update on Relentless and Loper Bright fishermen
• [41:21] New frontiers in regulatory litigation post-Chevron

Tone & Final Reflections

The conversation strikes a balance between irreverent (self-aware humor about legal tactics and bureaucracy) and earnest, with real passion for structural legal reform and the impacts on working people. The episode foregrounds the legal mechanics and historical significance but does not shy away from the political and cultural complexity underlying who makes the rules in America.

Ian Coss’s closing note emphasizes the contested nature of these questions, promising further exploration of what government regulation means for ordinary Americans and inviting listeners to consult a wider array of legal opinions.

End of Summary