Supreme Court’s Chevron Ruling: What SCOTUS’s Rejection of Chevron Decision Means, Undercutting Federal Regulators

WASHINGTON — Executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues under the Supreme Court’s far-reaching decision.

The court’s 6-3 ruling Friday overturned a 1984 decision, commonly known as Chevron, that directed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when regulations passed by Congress were not crystal clear.

The decision, made 40 years ago, has led to thousands of regulations being maintained by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been the subject of attacks by conservatives and business groups who say it gives too much power to the executive branch, which some critics call the administrative state.

SEE ALSO | Supreme Court rules in favor of defendant on January 6 in dispute over obstructing investigation

The Biden administration defended the law, warning that overturning Chevron’s so-called deference would be destabilizing and could cause a “convulsive shock” in the nation’s legal system.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges “must exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.”

As Roberts wrote, this ruling does not invalidate previous cases in which the Chevron doctrine was applied.

Here’s a look at the court’s decision and its implications for future government regulations.

What is Chevron’s decision?

Atlantic herring fishermen have filed a lawsuit over federal regulations requiring them to pay independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service did not follow proper rulemaking procedures.

In two related cases, fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron Doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. That ruling said judges should defer to the executive branch when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous.

In this case, the court upheld the complaint of the Environmental Protection Agency under then-President Ronald Reagan.

In the decades following the Chevron ruling, it became the basis of modern administrative law, requiring judges to follow reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes issued by agencies.

But the current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, is increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are challenging Chevron’s decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.

What is the rate?

With a closely divided Congress, presidential administrations are increasingly turning to federal regulations to implement policy changes. Federal regulations affect virtually every aspect of daily life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive, to the air we breathe and the homes in which we live.

For example, President Joe Biden’s administration has issued a series of new regulations on environmental protections and other priorities, including limits on emissions from power plants and vehicle tailpipes, as well as rules on student loan forgiveness, overtime pay and affordable housing.

These and other actions could be vulnerable to legal challenges if judges are allowed to discount or disregard the expertise of the executive branch agencies that implemented them.

READ MORE | Supreme Court says city’s homeless camping ban not ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment

With billions of dollars potentially at stake, groups representing the defense industry and other industries such as tobacco, agriculture, timber and construction were among those pushing for the justices to enact the Chevron doctrine and weaken government regulations.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a friend-of-the-court brief last year on behalf of business groups, arguing that the modern application of the Chevron Act “promotes the growth” of executive power at the expense of Congress and the courts.

David Doniger, a lawyer and longtime official at the Natural Resources Defense Council who argued the original Chevron case in 1984, said he fears that a ruling striking down the doctrine could “free up judges to be radical activists” who could “effectively rewrite our laws and block the protections they are supposed to provide.”

“The net effect will be to weaken our government’s ability to address the real problems the world throws at us – big issues like Covid and climate change,” Doniger said.

More than just fish

“This case was never just about the fish,” said Meredith Moore of the environmental group Ocean Conservancy. Instead, companies and other interest groups have used the herring fishery “to attack the foundations of the public agencies that serve the American public and protect our natural resources.” resources,” she said.

Moore and other advocates say the court ruling likely opens the floodgates to litigation that could undermine key protections for people and the environment.

“For more than 30 years, fisheries observers have successfully helped ensure that our oceans are managed responsibly so that fishing can continue into the future,” said Dustin Cranor of Oceana, another conservation group.

He called the case “the latest example of the far right trying to undermine the federal government’s ability to protect our oceans, waters, public lands, clean air and health.”

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey called the decision an appropriate follow-up to a 2022 decision — in a case he brought — that limits the EPA’s ability to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The court ruled that Congress must speak specifically if it wants to give the agency the authority to regulate issues of major national importance.

Morrisey, now the Republican candidate for governor, called Chevron “a flawed doctrine that courts defer to legally questionable interpretations of statutes by federal administrative agencies.”

Shift towards the judiciary

The Supreme Court’s ruling will almost certainly shift power from the executive branch and Congress to the courts, said Craig Green, a professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law.

“Federal judges will now have the first and final say on the meaning of the laws, he said. “It’s a big change of power.

In what some observers see as historical irony, many of the conservatives who now attack Chevron once celebrated it. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was among those who praised the original ruling as a way to limit liberal rights.

“Conservatives believed in this principle until they didn’t,” Green said in an interview.

In recent years, conservatives have focused on “deconstructing the administrative state,” even though doing so would ultimately limit the ability of a conservative president to impose his views on government agencies.

“If you weaken the federal government, you get less government,” Green said. It’s a result that pleases many conservatives, including those who support former President Donald Trump.

The ruling is likely to “disrupt federal agencies and make it even harder for them to solve serious problems. That’s exactly what Chevron’s critics want,” said Jody Freeman, director of the environmental and energy law program at Harvard Law School.