A new era of environmental regulation

On Friday, June 28, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron Doctrine in a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo. In doing so, the Court ushered in a new era of uncertainty for environmental regulations that protect rivers and clean water. Named for the landmark case of Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), the Chevron Doctrine has shaped the way courts have interpreted ambiguous statutes by administrative agencies for the past forty years. The doctrine has allowed agencies to approach complex regulatory challenges in a pragmatic manner, relying on agency expertise rather than explicit guidance from Congress.

Judicial review has long been a part of the regulatory rulemaking process in the highly contested environment of the United States. In reviewing agency regulations, courts typically first determine whether Congress has spoken directly on the subject. If Congress’s intent is clear, courts follow that intent. However, in cases where Congress was unclear, the Chevron doctrine required judges to defer to the expertise of agency personnel. The rationale for this deference was the recognition that agency personnel often possessed specialized knowledge and experience in their fields.

Let’s stay in touch!

We work hard for rivers and clean water. Sign up to receive the most important water and river news straight to your inbox.

The repeal of the Chevron Doctrine now disrupts this delicate balance between judicial oversight and administrative expertise by eliminating deference to agency expertise and allowing courts greater latitude to interpret, in their individual judgment, whether agency regulations are permissible. Most importantly, it limits the role of experts in regulatory development in favor of statutory clarity and judicial review by nonexperts.

The end of Chevron’s deference will have significant implications for protecting the environment of rivers, wetlands, and streams. Of particular contention will be the scope and interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Enacted in 1972, the CWA is a cornerstone of federal environmental law that seeks to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters by regulating the discharge of pollutants and setting water quality standards. Regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, are required to enforce the CWA. For nearly half a century, these agencies have had broad discretion to interpret the CWA and enforce a sound regulatory regime. However, this interpretive authority has now been largely removed from the agencies and applied to the courts.

Now more than ever, it is important for Congress to take action on behalf of rivers and clean water. Because agencies are currently limited in their ability to broadly interpret the law to protect the environment, Congress must clearly state its intentions to protect clean water for all. Ending deference to Chevron is a call for Congress to write the laws better and more clearly, and an opportunity for states to strengthen their own regulatory regimes, filling a gap that currently exists at the federal level.

While the full impact of the Chevron Doctrine overturn remains unknown, regulatory policy will undoubtedly be the subject of intense scrutiny and debate for the foreseeable future. As federal agency regulations evolve and are challenged in the courts, the interpretation and enforcement of environmental laws like the CWA will continue to change, affecting how well the nation is able to address water quality and environmental protections for our rivers, wetlands, and streams.