What the Supreme Court’s Chevron overturn could mean for PFAS and employment law

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the “Chevron Doctrine” has raised questions about how the move will impact federal regulations governing the waste and recycling industry, particularly those under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Labor.

The Chevron Doctrine It was decided in 1984 in the USA Supreme Court decisionChevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Councilheld that in cases where a federal regulation is unclear, courts should be guided by the administrative bodies’ interpretation of such regulations, provided that it is a “reasonable” interpretation.

In June, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Drifter Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo to overthrow the Chevron doctrinestating that courts must instead “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.”

While the long-term effects of the decision have yet to be determined, some experts say overturning the Chevron decision could make it easier for those who oppose certain federal regulations — affecting any industry — to challenge them in court.

Others say it won’t have an immediate impact on the waste industry, but could introduce more legal complexity over time when you consider aspects of the regulations, such as the EPA’s recent designation of some PFAS substances as hazardous substances or OSHA’s proposed heat standard.

Meanwhile, in a recent Supreme Court ruling, another ruling was made: Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, also has implications for challenging agency rules. Previously, parties had six years to challenge rules after they were issued, but Corner Post is changing that timeline to start from the moment a party is wronged by the rule. That could “reset the clock” for entities challenging specific rules, he said James Slaughter, a director at Beveridge & Diamond, who regularly works with the waste industry.

The Chevron reversal, along with the Corner Post ruling, are among new Supreme Court rulings that “set new rules of conduct that will guide the solid waste industry in the context of EPA regulations and enforcement actions,” he said.

Operational effects

While waste and recycling companies are monitoring the possible side effects of Loper Bright’s decision, some leaders say don’t expect immediate results in everyday functioning.

The Loper Bright decision could create opportunities for the solid waste and recycling industry to challenge federal regulations and enforcement actions. But the Supreme Court case does not affect state and local laws, which make up most of the regulations for waste and recycling operations, Slaughter said.

During an earnings conference call last week, addressing the potential for a PFAS cleanup, Clean Harbors co-CEO Eric Gerstenberg said Chevron’s reversal “will have no impact on our regulatory environment… There will be no change to current regulations.”

WM CEO Jim Fish echoed that view during his company’s recent earnings call, adding that “the company itself has done really well in almost every regulatory environment, except when someone comes in and says, you know, the landfills are closed tomorrow morning,” he said. “But other than that, we’re pretty agnostic on regulation, whether it’s the Chevron doctrine or anything else.”

Possible implications for PFAS laws and regulations

One area of potentially complex legal challenges is the recent EPA ruling designation of two perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, known as CERCLA or Superfund.

Groups addressing this issue include the National Waste and Recycling Association and the Recycled Materials Association. asked the federal court to reconsider the rule. The petitions did not mention Loper Bright, and NWRA President and CEO Michael E. Hoffman explained that the Chevron reversal “did not embolden us to pursue legal action.”

However, because the EPA is defending its hazardous substances rule against multiple entities, the Loper Bright ruling “will certainly make this particular dispute (over the Superfund PFAS rule) more difficult,” said former EPA Region 2 official Walter Mugdan. Inside EPA told.

According to a July 17 Jefferies assessment, the Loper Bright decision “does not immediately put the CERCLA designation at risk” because the Chevron doctrine applied only to ambiguous statutes. Citing legal counsel, Jefferies argues that Section 102a of the statute “unambiguously grants EPA the authority to make direct chemical determinations.”

However, the Jefferies analysis indicates there may be some “vulnerability” related to how the EPA defines “significant risk,” since “the basis for the CERCLA designation is EPA’s determination that PFOA and PFOS pose a significant risk.”

More generally, the possibility of more EPA decisions being challenged in court under Loper Bright, Hoffman said the EPA may have “seen the writing on the wall” that Chevron would be taken down, which may be why the agency has not relied much on Chevron’s deference in recent years when promulgating regulations, he added.

Loper Bright’s Influence on Future Federal Legislation

Experts say the impact of the Loper Bright decision will likely become more visible in the future as federal agencies continue to write new regulations. When agencies it should be remembered that they will no longer be treated with deference by Chevron in its interpretation of the statutes, which “should influence and temper the efforts of federal rulemaking agencies to try to more closely follow the dictates of the text of the law as written,” Slaughter said.

As an added benefit, Loper Bright could also create more opportunities for the industry to “engage with federal regulators early on when new regulations are being written,” which could include advocating for certain interpretations of statutes during comment submissions during the rulemaking process, he added.

One of the issues currently in the rulemaking process is the long-awaited OSHA Act. proposed standard to protect indoor and outdoor workers nationwide from extreme heat. The proposed standard Public comments will be available soon.

The proposed rule was in the works long before the Chevron deferral was reversed, and it’s unclear whether Loper Bright will enter the fray as the thermal standards rulemaking continues. But attorneys at Ogletree Deakins wrote in a blog post that process monitoringbecause “potential challenges to OSHA’s new proposed heating standard could give the Supreme Court another opportunity to question and potentially limit OSHA’s overall authority,” they wrote.

However, Loper Bright and other recent Supreme Court actions do not give the Supreme Court the ability to tell a government agency “that it cannot have a law or an occupational health and safety agency, but it does mean that Congress may need to better delegate authority and provide clearer and more limited guidance to executive agencies,” they wrote.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, the original plaintiff in the Chevron case, has spoken out against the Loper Bright decision, saying it significantly limits the ability of the EPA and other agencies to enforce certain environmental protections. But the NRDC points out that the decision “cuts both ways,” meaning an administration with a deregulatory mindset could still have it overturned by a judge “who has a different way of seeing things.”