Do you have links to back up this argument? Anyone that actually cited the parts of th law and and explained how scotus got it wrong?
In its ruling on the Cape May fishermen’s case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., “decided that broad ‘necessary and appropriate’ language in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs U.S. fisheries, augmented the agency’s regulatory power,” according to a narrative from the New Civil Liberties Alliance. “It then relied heavily on Chevron deference to uphold the agency’s ostensibly reasonable interpretation of a supposedly ambiguous federal statute.”
https://www.nationalfisherman.com/national-international/sup...
Here’s the necessary and proper clause: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-1....
It’s hard to square “well congress didn’t intend for them to have that power” when they quoted their own damn rules when they wrote the law.
But again, SCOTUS decided Congress doesn’t have that power.
FWIW it says "the Congress shall have power..." not unelected bureaucrats of any stripe. In the event the issue about "unbiased experts" is raised, remember that the case is about "who should pay" not that there should or should not be monitors on the boat.