FEMA HAS NO AUTHORITY DUE TO Chevron deference
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/s...eral-agencies/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51ywwrq45qo
https://www.bakerdonelson.com/suprem...ext-for-fema?t
https://www.bakerdonelson.com/impend...ute-resolution
Historically, the courts have had little involvement in review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) decisions regarding the billions of dollars of federal disaster recovery funding that FEMA administers annually. Legal professionals typically discourage pursuing judicial review of a FEMA denial of funding due to the discretionary nature of most of FEMA's programs and also the high level of deference given to FEMA's interpretation and application of the laws that apply. However, the United States Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling this month that may nullify years of precedent through the anticipated overturn of the namesake case for "Chevron deference." If this occurs, pursuing relief from an offensive FEMA denial through an action for judicial review in the courts could emerge as a new option.
For decades, federal agencies, like FEMA, have enjoyed significant deference from the courts regarding their interpretation of laws and regulations applicable to the program(s) they administer, a principle known as "Chevron deference" after the 1984 decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. In short, Chevron and its progeny establish that courts give deference to an agency's interpretation of the applicable law so long as the interpretation is: (i) issued by the agency charged with administering it; (ii) generally rational or reasonable; and (iii) given in a form that would have the force of law, like an adjudication or formal notice-and-comment rulemaking. Now this long-standing doctrine is under intense scrutiny as the Supreme Court of the United States considers two pivotal cases1 that could dismantle it.