On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing legal doctrine in the United States, issuing a transformative ruling that could hamper the ability of federal agencies to regulate all types of industries. Six Republican-appointed judges voted to overturn the doctrine, called Chevron deference, a decision that could affect everything from pollution limits to consumer protections in the United States.
Chevron deference allows courts to defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. That is supposed to lead to more informed decisions based on expertise within those agencies. In overturning the Chevron doctrine, the conservative-dominated SCOTUS decided that judges should make the decision instead of agency experts.
“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron's presumption is flawed because the agencies have no special jurisdiction to resolve legal ambiguities. The courts do it,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his opinion.
The decision deprives federal agencies of a tool they have been able to use to take action on pressing issues as Congress tries to catch up with new laws. Deference to Chevron has emerged, for example, in efforts to use the Clean Air Act of 1970 to prevent greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Repealing it is a big victory for lobbyists and anyone who wants to make it harder to crack down on the industry through federal regulations.
“It would really trigger a kind of chaotic period in which the federal courts would decide what they think all these laws mean. And that can lead to a lot of inconsistency and confusion for agencies and regulated parties,” Jody Freeman, director of the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program, previously said. The Vergoand when SCOTUS heard oral arguments on Chevron deference in January.
It is called Chevron deference because of a 1984 ruling, Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In that case, the Supreme Court sided with Chevron rather than the environmental group NRDC, allowing the then-industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan to uphold a more lax interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It shows how Chevron deference has been something of a political agnostic in the past, even though the most recent push to overturn it has aligned with a deregulatory agenda.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that deference to Chevron “has formed the context in which Congress, courts, and agencies, as well as regulated parties and the public, have operated for decades. It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the fabric of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds—to name a few, keeping the air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent. (In a tricky little detail that doesn’t matter because of the sheer number of votes in the majority, Justice Jackson’s dissent only applies to Relentlesssince she recused herself Brilliant Loper.)
“If Chevron is expelled, the Court would be inviting unaccountable judges to freely impose their policy preferences over those of the political branches — exactly what Chevron sought to stop,” David Doniger, senior counsel at the NRDC Action Fund and a lawyer who litigated the 1984 case, said at a news conference earlier this month.
SCOTUS accepted Chevron deference this year due to two cases brought by the fishing industry: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of CommerceThe plaintiffs challenged a federal rule requiring fishing companies to pay for observers on boats to monitor their operations, arguing that the National Marine Fisheries Service doesn’t actually have the authority to force them to pay because it’s not explicitly written into the fishery conservation statute. Lower courts upheld the mandate, applying Chevron deference.
But in these cases there is much more at stake than fishing vessels. Commercial groups representing a wide range of interests America's Gun Owners to e-cigarette companies All have pushed to repeal or limit deference to Chevron.
The fate of net neutrality in the United States, for example, has been tech-policy/2023/10/is-net-neutrality-doomed-at-supreme-court-fcc-and-isps-prepare-for-epic-battle/6/”>tied to Chevron deference. The courts have Previously transferred to the FCC on how to define broadband. Is it considered a telecommunications or information service? If it is telecommunications, then it is subject to “common carrier” regulations and restrictions placed on utilities to ensure fair access. The FCC has changed its stance on the issue between the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, and in April decided to reinstate net neutrality rules.
The Supreme Court's decision risks bogging down the courts with all of these essential questions. They used to be able to hand off much of that to federal agencies, a measure that is now outside the playbook.
