Supreme Court Repeal of Chevron Doctrine Could Weaken Environmental and Climate Regulations

In front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., June 28, 2024. Craig Hudson for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Why you can trust us

Founded in 2005 in Ohio as an environmental newspaper, EcoWatch is a digital platform dedicated to publishing high-quality, evidence-based content about environmental problems, their causes and solutions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a ruling made 40 years ago — Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council — which ordered lower courts to show deference to federal agencies when federal laws are seen as ambiguous. The decision means agencies will have a harder time regulating issues related to the environment, workplace safety, public health and other important issues.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said the court “made a serious error” when it gave agency regulators deference in interpreting federal regulations in 1984.

“Chevron’s premise is flawed because agencies have no special authority to resolve statutory ambiguities,” Roberts wrote, as reported by Inside Climate News. “The courts do.”

The Biden administration has argued that resolving legal ambiguities requires policymaking that is better determined by political players than judges. In response, Roberts said congressional elected officials expect courts to interpret the meaning of laws that Congress can change.

“To the extent that Congress and the Executive Branch may disagree with the manner in which the courts have carried out their task in a particular case, they of course always have discretion to act by changing the statute,” Roberts wrote in the opinion.

But Congress has increasingly included environmental and health policy in budget legislation, leaving its intent open to interpretation. That means repealing Chevron would give more power to courts and less to federal agencies with expertise in those matters.

The decision potentially makes it easier for those who oppose federal regulations to bring new lawsuits to challenge them, The New York Times reported, adding uncertainty to a variety of industries and businesses.

“If Americans are concerned about their drinking water, their health, their retirement accounts, job discrimination, if they fly, if they drive, if they go outside and breathe air — all of those everyday activities are subject to a vast universe of federal agency regulations,” said Lisa Heinzerling, an administrative law expert at Georgetown University, as reported by The New York Times. “And this decision now means that courts can strike down more of those regulations.”

The decision is a major victory in a long process of limiting the power of the federal government.

The ruling could bolster conservative efforts to counter Biden’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations aimed at limiting human-caused global warming from oil and gas, vehicles and power plants, CNN reported.

“There is no area of ​​law that this doctrine does not touch,” said Kent Barnett, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law who specializes in administrative law, according to CNN.

Over the years, courts have invoked Chevron to uphold the regulations, and it has become one of the most cited administrative law cases. Industry advocates have urged courts to abandon it as a tool for government abuse of power.

“What would happen in a world without Chevron“If this Goliath of modern administrative law were to fall?” wrote Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, then a federal appeals judge, in an immigration case in 2016, as reported by Inside Climate News. “It seems to me that in a world without Chevron “not much would change — except perhaps the most important things.”

In most cases where the Chevron Rule applies, agencies are using broad legal authority granted to them by Congress before climate change was even acknowledged or understood.

Depending on the case, agencies have received varying degrees of guidance from Congress. For example, the vehicle regulations in the Clean Air Act are more detailed than the regulations for power plants.

In nearly all of the cases challenging Biden’s policies, the opposition has cited what they see as errors in the legal interpretation of the agency’s actions or legal ambiguities.

“It’s very difficult to write legislation in technical, controversial areas and not have a shred of ambiguity in it,” Heinzerling said in an interview before the Supreme Court decision, as reported by Inside Climate News. “Even if someone really tries to be careful, people with enough money and lawyers can really take ambiguity out of something that was supposed to be clear after the fact.”

The reversal of the Chevron ruling means that the burden of legal interpretation of regulatory rules has shifted to judges, who typically rely on the latest technical and scientific knowledge when interpreting regulatory rules.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented sharply, saying the decision stripped away “a cornerstone of administrative law.”

Deference to Chevron “has become part of the warp and weft of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — keeping our air and water clean, our food and medicine safe, and our financial markets honest, to name a few,” Kagan wrote.

Kagan added that Congress has tasked federal agencies with interpreting the regulations, which typically involves technical or scientific issues.

“The agencies have expertise in these areas,” Kagan wrote in his dissent. “The courts do not.”