SCOTUS overturns 40-year-old Chevron decision, signaling major shift in regulatory power

In a landmark ruling Friday, the Supreme Court overturned four decades of precedent that significantly changed the landscape of federal regulation. The decision, which overturned a 1984 Chevron ruling, was a major victory for business interests and a blow to the regulatory state, – Associated Press News reported.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority voted to overturn the Chevron decision, which allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous regulations. The rule allowed agencies to regulate a variety of sectors, including the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protection, without having to obtain explicit congressional approval for each action.

Chevron’s decision has long been a target of conservatives, who saw it as an overreach of executive power. By giving federal agencies the power to fill out the details of broadly written regulations, critics saw Chevron as ceding legislative power to unelected bureaucrats. The Court’s liberal justices disagreed, warning that the ruling could undermine the effectiveness of regulatory agencies.

The decision represents the most explicit rejection yet by a conservative-dominated court of what critics derisively call the “administrative state.” The implications of the ruling are enormous, with billions of dollars potentially at stake in future legal challenges, as industries and businesses may now have a stronger case for challenging regulations imposed by federal agencies.

The Biden administration has warned against such a drastic change. The administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer argued that striking down Chevron would create significant uncertainty and disrupt the legal system. The essence of the Chevron doctrine was to allow experts at federal agencies to interpret and implement complex laws, a role that some say is better suited for those with specialized knowledge rather than the judiciary.

The ruling is expected to trigger a wave of litigation as companies and industry groups seek to challenge existing regulations that were based on agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The outcome of these cases could change the regulatory landscape in the United States, potentially rolling back protections and standards that have been in place for decades.

Source: Associated Press News