An Arkansas legal expert explains the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Chevron case

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. “Friday’s ruling could impact almost every aspect of people’s lives, from the food they eat and the cars they drive, to the air we breathe and the homes in which they live.

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources decision, exposing federal regulations that many live by every day to the possibility of being changed or challenged.

For Arkansans, this decision could change hunting laws as well as farm and agriculture laws.

For retirement communities in Arkansas, this could also impact Medicaid and Medicare regulations.

John DiPippa, dean emeritus and distinguished professor of law at the William Bowen School of Law, explained how big an impact the ruling could have.

“Almost everything you touch throughout the day will have some connection to federal regulations,” DiPippa said.

Over the past 40 years, it has been held that experts in various regulatory agencies are staffed by experts who may be better equipped to make specific regulatory decisions, rather than courts.

However, all this is subject to change and the final decision as to the interpretation of the law rests with the judge.

“It sort of opens up all of these regulations to question and undermine the ability and effectiveness of a court or government to regulate all areas of health, safety, agriculture, etc.” DiPippa said.

He added that this ruling even affects existing regulations.

“The Clean Air and Clean Water Act was passed in the early 1970s,” DiPippa said. “That was long before the science of carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide causing global warming, so the question now is whether the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide emissions because they pollute the air or pose a health and safety hazard.”

The court’s ruling makes it harder for the EPA to make such decisions by requiring Congress to update the law rather than the agency interpreting how the law is applied through regulations.

This would allow Congress to be more specific when crafting legislation, which DiPippa said is good news.

“The bad news is that the more specific you are, the easier it is to say, ‘You didn’t say that.’ You said X, Y, Z, but you didn’t say something else, so it’s not covered,’” DiPippa said.

As for the impact of this situation on the future, DiPippa believes there could be hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits in the future.

“Now you can convince a judge that your interpretation of the law is better than the agency’s,” DiPippa said.

The Supreme Court says allowing federal agencies to interpret regulations gives too much power to the executive branch, which is why it overturned the Chevron case.

It can also lead to divergence of opinion between courts if the final decision rests with each judge.