Repercussions from a loose door plug on a Boeing 737 Max 9 extend beyond the danger posed to air travelers and the scrutiny brought to the aerospace giant. They speak to ongoing political debates about the role of the regulatory state and the proper balance between economic concerns and government oversight.
In the case of Boeing, which has a centurylong tie to Washington and remains one of the state’s largest private employers, the latest incident was last month in the skies above Portland. A door plug fell off midflight, leading to phones and debris being sucked out of the plane. No serious injuries were reported, aside from those to Boeing’s reputation.
The incident led to a grounding of all 737 Max 9 planes, pending inspections; nearly all planes have been returned to service. It also led to inspections by the Federal Aviation Administration and examinations of Boeing’s compliance with safety standards.
Such actions clearly are necessary. Lax airline safety can lead to hundreds of deaths, and a single incident can send shockwaves through the economy.
Most federal oversight does not involve the potential for mass casualties, but it does impact the daily lives of Americans. That is why recent arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court are so important.
Justices last month heard arguments in two cases involving vessels in the Atlantic herring fishery, and the scope of the cases can be seen in the fact that fishing vessels and herring were rarely mentioned in court. Instead, the cases center around a 40-year-old legal doctrine known as the “Chevron deference,” which requires that courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of laws passed by Congress if that interpretation is “reasonable.”
Conservative legal scholars and politicians long have sought to overturn the deference, which was established in the court’s 1984 ruling on Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. That case involved a regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. Critics say the ruling gives federal bureaucrats too much power in crafting regulations.
Indeed, there are drawbacks to the decision. Among them is the fact that a new presidential administration can implement different interpretations of a law, altering the enforcement goals of agencies such as the EPA, the FAA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The broad use of executive orders by presidents from both parties have altered the regulatory burden for hundreds of thousands of business in recent decades.
But efforts to undermine the regulatory state are dangerous to the economy and public safety. In creating laws related to government oversight of food safety or medications, members of Congress cannot be expected to know or understand the nuances of implementing that law. Neither can the courts. Federal agencies, on the other hand, are staffed with experts in a particular field who are better suited to the job.
As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out during recent arguments: “Congress knows that there are going to be things that it writes that are just not going to be clear — how this will apply or what it will mean with respect to countless factual situations that this country will have to address.”
Therein lies the problem with persistent and growing attacks against the regulatory state. As the case of Boeing clearly demonstrates, regulators play an important and necessary role in establishing and enforcing policies that protect Americans.
