Supreme Court overturns Chevron decision, impacting consumer protection

By Stacy M. Brown
Senior National Correspondent NNPA Newswire

(NNPA Newswire) – The Supreme Court has issued a potentially devastating ruling that would make it harder for Americans to dictate to the Supreme Court, to those in power, to those running for office, and to the president what they cannot do. It is known as the Chevron decision.

On June 28, the Supreme Court threw out the history books of a 1984 ruling known as Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that potentially threatened the safety, rights of consumers and the environment. The decision could lead to skyrocketing phone bills, rising health care costs and the undoing of decades of food safety and consumer protection regulations.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority dealt another blow to the power of federal agencies. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared: “Chevron is struck down. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, warned that “longstanding precedent at the heart of administrative governance thus falls victim to bold assertions of judicial power.”

At the time of the decision four decades ago, Chevron was a victory for the Reagan administration’s deregulatory agenda, giving judges the ability to ask federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. The flexibility has allowed Democratic and Republican presidents to implement new rules on a variety of issues. But many Republicans have increasingly criticized Chevron, arguing that it gives too much power to agency bureaucrats. Environmentalists and other left-wing groups have championed Chevron for its ability to address issues like climate change.

The case that led to this ruling involved a challenge to a federal regulation requiring fishing vessel operators to fund data collection for fisheries conservation and management. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which oversees ocean resources, issued a rule in 2020 requiring vessel operators to pay up to $710 a day to independent observers monitoring operations. Small owner-operators argued that these costs were burdensome, challenging the service’s authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. Lower courts ruled in favor of the federal government.

The Trump administration has supported a campaign by conservative judges to limit the powers of federal agencies, and this decision is the latest in that series. The court’s conservative majority, including three Trump appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — has repeatedly invalidated agency actions lacking express congressional authorization under the “important questions doctrine.”

Former acting Attorney General Neal Katyal raised the alarm in an interview with NBC News, saying: “The Supreme Court did something extraordinary, extremely dangerous. Most government regulations in this country are not set by Congress. Administrative agencies do it… What the Supreme Court did today by a 6-3 majority was take down Chevron. This will make it much more difficult to regulate businesses, protect consumers, protect the environment and protect our health care.”

Katyal emphasized the ruling’s huge impact, noting that regulations from agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, which affect everything from environmental standards to food safety and phone bill costs, will now face greater challenges. He warned: “This decision… will change government as we know it.”

The political dynamics behind the ruling reflect the diminishing productivity of Congress along partisan lines, leading to greater reliance on agency rules to achieve regulatory goals, particularly by Democratic presidents. The 1984 Chevron precedent, which called for courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous regulations, has been a target of conservatives and business interests for years. With the ruling, the Supreme Court radically changed the landscape of American government, with opponents arguing that it potentially jeopardized decades of consumer and environmental protections and ushered in a new era of regulatory challenges.