What ‘Loper Bright’ Could Mean for People with Disabilities

The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is already causing a lot of stress for many people.

Loper Light overturned the Chevron deference principle that the Supreme Court established in its 1984 decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.. That decision essentially said that when a federal agency writes rules and regulations to add detail to a law passed by Congress, if that rule or regulation is challenged in court on the basis that the law’s intent is ambiguous, judges must defer to the agency’s expertise.

But in the opinion of the majority in DrifterSupreme Court Justice John Roberts wrote:Chevron is reversed. The courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether the agency acted within its statutory authority.”

That takes away a lot of executive and legislative power and gives a lot of judicial power to determine the effectiveness of federal laws. And that has spooked some who worry that the change will embolden businesses and others to file lawsuits challenging laws that are meant to protect the environment, civil rights and other areas vulnerable to corporate interference.

Disability leaders are similarly horrified by the potential scale Drifter decision because when Congress passed laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it called on federal agencies to develop and issue detailed rules and regulations that gave substance to those laws.

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) website states that the organization “works with disability advocates, government agencies, and corporate and nonprofit partners to advance the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

In the statement regarding Drifter In the decision, AAPD President and CEO Maria Town said, “AAPD is deeply concerned that this decision will open the door to a flood of lawsuits seeking to strike down federal laws that protect the rights of people with disabilities, such as access to health care for people with disabilities, but also on issues that affect all Americans and are of great importance to the lives of people with disabilities, such as civil rights protections, employment protections, environmental standards, safety standards, and food and drug regulations.”

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network also issued a statement “condemning” the Supreme Court’s actions. The statement said, “This ruling will weaken the regulatory authority of all federal agencies…Federal agencies create regulations or rules that fill gaps in laws designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities, civil rights, housing, health care, and more…Instead, federal courts will now have the final say in circumstances that require expertise in highly specialized, complex, and technical matters. This change will lead to inconsistent and conflicting rulings across the country, leading to avoidable litigation, confusion, and decisions that do not benefit the people affected.”

This fear is not unfounded. Some companies, such as Domino’s Pizza, have challenged the ADA all the way to the Supreme Court. I believe the political intent of the six justices who voted in the majority in that decision was to make it easier for the hostile forces to win.