Chevron Doctrine Overturned: Opinions Divide on Supreme Court Ruling That Impacts Regulatory Oversight

NOTE TO PB REVIEWERS: This story is still in development. Available for PB proofreading only.

In its ruling of 28 June in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoThe United States Supreme Court overturned a 1984 legal precedent commonly known as Chevron Doctrine. Named after another Supreme Court case, Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.This doctrine held that when the law is unclear, courts may rely on reasonable interpretations of the law by federal regulatory agencies.

This The Associated Press news agency reported that that conservatives and business groups have long attacked the doctrine, saying it gives too much power to the executive branch. Reversing the Chevron doctrine would make it harder for federal agencies to defend their regulations, the article said.

“This Chevron “The doctrine comes into play when a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute is challenged,” said Brooke Zentmeyer, an associate at the Columbus, Ohio-based law firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease. in a post on the company’s website“For example, if an agency such as the USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) issues a regulation that defines a term in one of its applicable statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, and that regulation is challenged, the court will use the Chevron doctrine to decide the case.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which serves as an environmental watchdog and was a party in the original Chevron case, said the ruling would limit the ability of federal agencies like the EPA to implement and enforce regulations.

“Rather than relying on agency expertise to interpret ambiguous language in the laws that govern their work, federal judges now have the authority to decide what the law means for themselves,” said Jeff Turrentine in a commentary on the NRDC website. “As a result, despite their lack of accountability to the people, judges will now be able to expand their role into the realm of policymaking.”

Some organizations praised the ruling. In a press release, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) called the Chevron doctrine “impractical and inconsistent.”

“Today’s ruling is a game-changer for manufacturers because Chevron was at least partially responsible for the unpredictability and abuse that has become synonymous with the modern regulatory state,” said Linda Kelly, NAM’s chief legal officer. “We hope this spells the end of an overzealous regulatory system that has become complex, with compliance in many cases at odds with agencies.”

Chris Netram, vice president of policy at NAM, added that manufacturers have faced a “regulatory storm” that the ruling aims to end.

“EPA, SEC, and DOL—the aggressive nature of regulatory and enforcement actions that exceed their authority comes from an alphabet soup of regulators. NAM has been successful in challenging key regulations in court, and today’s decision gives us the ability to challenge even more actions while ensuring that future agency actions do not exceed the authority Congress has given us.”

The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) trade association reported that Chevron allowed unelected officials of regulatory agencies to act beyond the scope of their authority.

“This decision rightly places legislation in the hands of elected representatives in Congress, rather than in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats,” said Kurt R. Bauer, president and CEO of WMC. “This is an important corrective step to reduce the stifling influence of the regulatory state on Wisconsin businesses.”