Chevron’s decision rightly reduces bureaucracy

Detroit News
| Detroit News

The U.S. Supreme Court rightly limited government power over private enterprise and individual liberties in two cases announced last week.

In a landmark ruling that invalidated a rule known as Chevron deference, the court overturned 40 years of lawmaking that relied on the interpretations of expert bureaucrats to determine the law’s intent.

The doctrine held that when a law is not crystal clear, a federal court should defer to the interpretation preferred by the agency that administers the statute. In striking down Chevron, the court said the judicial branch can still defer to agency interpretations, but is not required to do so.

The fallout from eliminating Chevron’s deference extends to every major industry in the country, namely automotive, energy and transportation, but also big tech, banking and health care.

Chevron has been used for decades to approve de facto legislation, undermining, as Chief Justice John Roberts has observed, the very rule of law.

Businesses and individuals should adhere to the letter of the law, not bureaucratic interpretations that some may consider reasonable but that can also result in arbitrary punishment.

Similarly, in another victory over government abuses, the Supreme Court ruled in Corner Post v. Board of Governors, Federal Reserve, significantly extending the statute of limitations for challenges to federal agency regulations.

These are common sense decisions that should increase government accountability and encourage lawmakers to legislate more transparently.

The rulings will make it harder for federal agencies to impose tough regulations, especially environmental policies, including efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such aggressive regulation has led to massive economic investment and has fundamentally redefined the auto industry.

The Biden administration’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks may be particularly at risk.

These regulations forced a major overhaul of vehicle manufacturing and planning that had a huge impact on the national economy, and most importantly, on Michigan’s economy. However, in the example of the discretionary regulatory authority that Chevron’s deference allowed, the authority to impose regulations was not enshrined in the Clean Air Act.

The new rule could thwart mandatory emissions standards, though automakers would still be free to adopt voluntary targets, which many are likely to accept given support for the existing standards.

The ruling broke ideological lines, where conservatives predominated, and is a significant victory for property rights. Various federal agencies have used the Clean Water Act and other laws to impose sweeping restrictions on landowners in the name of wetland protection, restrictions that Congress never intended.

Chevron’s supporters argue that lawmakers aren’t savvy enough to write highly technical rules for complex, nuanced industries. That’s probably true. But they do have access to experts who could inform policy as it’s being written.

However, the bureaucracy will no longer have as much freedom to create regulations based on skeleton legislation.

Chevron’s reprimand has been long overdue. Now, lawsuits are expected to flood from those who have been unfairly burdened by the agency’s interpretations. Congress should also launch a bipartisan effort to identify and fix laws that have been distorted beyond their original intent by overly aggressive regulators.