Conclusion Chevron: Supreme Court ruling removes frequently used tool from federal regulators

The doctrine, named after a 1984 case involving the energy giant, has become the basis for thousands of federal regulations but has long been the target of attacks by conservatives and business groups who say it gives too much power to the executive branch, which some critics call the state administrative.

Here are some conclusions from the court’s ruling and its consequences.

One less tool to govern

The Chevron decision essentially gave federal agencies the authority to issue regulations implementing laws that were not clear. And this deference to executive power has enabled presidential administrations in both parties to use rulemaking to create policy, especially at a time of deep partisan division in Washington.

Friday’s Supreme Court decision means the federal government may have a harder time defending those rules in federal court.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said Chevron gave too much power to experts working for the government. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote.

He added that this ruling does not call into question previous cases in which the Chevron doctrine was applied.

Cara Horowitz, a professor of environmental law and executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, said the decision “pulls more tools out of the toolbox of federal regulators.”

“By definition, statutes typically do not clearly define how agencies should address new and emerging threats, such as climate change, which were not well understood when these decades-old statutes were written,” she said.

Potential impact on the environment and public health

Environmental and public health advocates say the decision could undermine efforts to reduce air and water pollution, curb the use of toxic chemicals and even confront new public health threats like COVID-19.

Horowitz called the ruling “another blow to the EPA’s ability to deal with emerging problems like climate change.”

And Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, said: “This undermines the fundamental rights of Americans at the behest of powerful polluters.”

Carrie Severino, a lawyer and conservative activist, called the decision “a great victory for the rule of law.”

“Let’s say goodbye to the respect of Chevron, which has put a two-ton judicial thumb on the scales of government bureaucrats against this little guy,” she said.

If regulators “want to win in the future, they need to do their job more carefully” and resist the temptation to “push their own agenda,” Severino said.

The ruling follows a Supreme Court decision Thursday that blocks enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule, intended to curb exhaust emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollutants.

A greater role for Congress?

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said the ruling “restores proper balance” to the three branches of government.

“Congress will now be under enormous pressure to be more specific when crafting legislation so that the plain text of the bill can be clearly interpreted by courts and federal agencies when the legislation becomes law,” Grassley wrote on social media site X.

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said the court’s conservative majority “has simply eviscerated decades of precedent in a move that will embolden judicial activism and undermine important regulations.”

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision “came at the expense of ordinary Americans who rely on federal agencies to take care of their health and safety, not the bottom line of giant corporations.”

Craig Segall, vice president of environmental group Evergreen Action, said the ruling “opened the door” for large corporations to challenge a range of federal regulations.

“Dismantling the Chevron Doctrine grants any Trump-appointed judge the authority to reject agency experts’ interpretations of the law and replace their ideological viewpoints with the informed findings of career public servants,” Segall said.

Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer and former EPA chief under President George W. Bush, said it will now be up to federal agencies “to decide what Congress actually expects of them.”

“The days of federal agencies filling legislative gaps are rightly over,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey said the ruling creates a “regulatory black hole that destroys basic protections for every American.” He and other Democrats have pledged to push for legislation to restore the Chevron Doctrine, a measure that has a good chance of succeeding in a closely divided Congress. .

Car safety rules at risk?

In the short term, the decision will likely limit government efforts on auto safety, prompting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to consider new regulations, said Michael Brooks, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, a watchdog group.

“It will be harder for NHTSA to come up with rules that will ultimately ensure greater safety,” Brooks said.

But the Specialty Equipment Market Association, which represents companies that make specialty auto parts, said the decision would liberate small businesses that have suffered from excessive federal regulation.

Earlier this year, NHTSA proposed requiring automatic emergency braking to be standard on all new U.S. passenger vehicles within five years, calling it the most important safety rule in the past two decades.

Automakers have already petitioned the agency to reconsider the regulations, saying it is nearly impossible to meet efficiency standards using current technology.

Associated Press writers Tom Krisher in Detroit and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this article.