Supreme Court overturns Chevron ruling, a major blow to consumer protections and regulatory powers

In a ruling that should make all Americans stop saying what the Supreme Court, those in power or running for office and the presidency cannot do, the Supreme Court has issued what could be a devastating ruling in the so-called Chevron decision. The decision could lead to skyrocketing phone bills, rising health care costs and the dismantling of decades of food safety and consumer protection laws. The Supreme Court threw out the history books of a 1984 ruling known as Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, potentially threatening the safety and rights of consumers and the environment.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority dealt another blow to the power of federal agencies. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Chevron is overturned. The courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.” Liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned in her dissenting opinion that “long-standing precedent on the heart of administrative governance falls victim to a brazen assertion of judicial authority.”

At the time of the decision, Chevron was a victory for the Reagan administration’s deregulatory agenda, giving judges the ability to defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws. The flexibility allowed Democratic and Republican presidents to implement new regulations on different issues. But many Republicans increasingly criticized Chevron, saying it gave too much power to agency bureaucrats. Environmental activists and other left-wing groups defended Chevron for its ability to address issues like climate change.

The case that led to the ruling involved a challenge to a federal regulation requiring fishing vessel operators to fund data collection for fisheries conservation and management purposes. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which oversees ocean resources, issued a rule in 2020 requiring vessel operators to pay up to $710 per day to independent observers to monitor operations. The small owner-operators argued that the cost was 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 backed conservative judges’ campaign to curtail the powers of federal agencies, The decision is the latest in a series in which 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 “good questions doctrine.”

Former Acting Attorney General Neal Katyal sounded the alarm in an interview with NBC News, stating, “The Supreme Court did something extraordinary, something extremely dangerous. Most government regulation in this country is not done by Congress. It’s done by administrative agencies. What the Supreme Court did today by a vote of 6-3 was overturn Chevron. It’s going to make it much harder to regulate business, to protect consumers, to protect the environment, to protect our health care.”

Katyal underscored the ruling’s outsize impact, noting that regulatory agencies like the EPA, FDA and FCC, which affect everything from environmental standards to food safety to the cost of phone bills, 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.