U.S. Supreme Court ruling weakens federal agencies could impact Wisconsin rules, legal battles

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling limited the authority of federal agencies to issue regulations, a decision that drew praise from Wisconsin’s largest business group and concerns from state environmentalists.

Last week, the court’s conservative majority overturned a 40-year-old legal doctrine known as “Chevron deference,” which dates back to a 1984 ruling involving an energy company. The 6-3 decision ended a legal precedent that allowed courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law when it was unclear. The ruling shifts authority from regulatory agencies to courts and Congress.

Clean Wisconsin issued a statement Friday calling the decision an “environmental disaster.” Evan Feinauer, an attorney for the group, told WPR that the ruling makes it easier to throw out recent environmental regulations crafted by the Biden administration to reduce pollution, replace lead pipes and set limits on PFAS in drinking water.

“If you care about lead-free water, if you care about PFAS-free water, if you care about doing something about climate change, if you care about vehicles that don’t emit pollutants, if you care about not breathing ozone (pollution) every day, this should be very concerning and very scary to you,” Feinauer said.

The decision has far-reaching implications for regulation beyond the environment. It would also affect safeguards for public health, workers, food safety and other issues. Supporters say Chevron was banking on the idea that agency experts were better able to interpret the law than unelected judges. But conservatives and business groups argued that Chevron had expanded the power of what they call the “administrative state.”

The head of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business group, praised the court’s decision in a statement Friday.

“This decision rightly places legislation in the hands of elected representatives in Congress, rather than in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats. It is an important corrective step to reduce the stifling influence of the regulatory state on Wisconsin businesses,” said Kurt Bauer, the group’s president and CEO.

WMC cited a report from the National Association of Manufacturers that estimated that compliance with federal regulations costs companies about $13,000 per employee per year.

Conservative law firm says it will likely challenge agency decisions

Because those laws are now easier to overturn, one conservative law firm in Wisconsin said it will likely pursue more lawsuits challenging federal agency actions.

Lucas Vebber, deputy general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said there has been little chance so far of challenging the agency’s decisions or rules.

“It’s fair to say that our organization sees this as leveling the playing field and giving us a fair chance to potentially challenge an agency’s misinterpretation of the law without having to go against the agency’s respect,” Vebber said.

Steph Tai, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Law, said the decision means that litigants, whether conservative or liberal, are likely to bring cases to court that align with their own political preferences, despite claims that judges are impartial.

“They will elect judges who are more likely to support their argument that all federal regulations should be struck down,” Tai said.

Challenges to federal agency regulations could impact state regulations

If the challenges overturn the federal rule, environmental advocates say it could affect protections in Wisconsin. For example, Feinauer pointed to the EPA’s standards for PFAS in drinking water. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, states must meet minimum federal standards for contaminants in tap water. While Wisconsin has limits on the chemicals, they are not as stringent or protective as the federal rules.

“Whether we have regulation at the federal level can have a direct impact on whether we have regulation at the state level,” Feinauer said.

Still, Vebber argued that Congress makes the laws and has the authority to change them if it disagrees with any court’s interpretation of the statutes. He added that the Wisconsin Supreme Court eliminated the state’s version of Chevron, which honors agencies, in a 2018 ruling.

“It kind of goes back to the core functions of the judiciary and the role of the judiciary as declaring what the laws mean, rather than deferring to executive agencies as to what they think the laws mean,” Vebber said.

The ruling requires Congress to specify more details in the laws.

Tai said the ruling places an onus on Congress to provide more detail or clarify the regulations.

“It’s difficult for Congress because they don’t necessarily know all the technical details,” Tai said, noting that there are sometimes ambiguities because they don’t have access to all the information.

Legal experts say the laws typically fail to specify how to deal with new threats, such as climate change, which were not a priority when basic environmental laws were created.

Though the state Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in 2018, Tai said it’s hard to predict what might happen at the federal level, given Wisconsin’s shift away from relying on state agencies.

They said the reason is that there are many barriers for state agencies to pass new regulations. Tai noted that these include a law known as the REINS Act, which requires legislative approval of regulations that are too costly, in addition to legislative committees that have blocked funding requests or regulations to implement state law.

Still, Tai and Feinauer said some predict Friday’s decision will create more barriers for federal agencies to write regulations. Feinauer said it could have a chilling effect on regulators who might decide it’s not worth the time and resources to write regulations that a court could later overturn. As for conservatives, Vebber said the goal has always been to ensure the regulations are legal as written.