Supreme Court overturns Chevron, slamming federal regulators

On Friday, the Supreme Court struck down a long-standing U.S. legal doctrine, making a transformative ruling that could undermine the ability of federal agencies to regulate all types of industry. Six Republican-appointed justices voted to overturn the doctrine, called Chevron deference, a ruling that could affect everything from pollution limits to U.S. consumer protections.

Chevron deference allows courts to defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. This should lead to more informed decisions, drawing on the experience of these agencies. In overturning the Chevron doctrine, the conservative-dominated SCOTUS ruled that judges should make the decision rather than agency experts.

“Perhaps more fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misplaced because agencies have no special jurisdiction in resolving legal ambiguities. The courts do,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his opinion.

The ruling effectively strips federal agencies of a tool they have been able to use to take action on urgent issues as Congress tries to keep up with new laws. Chevron’s deference emerged, for example, in efforts to use the Clean Air Act of 1970 to prevent greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Overturning it is a huge victory for lobbyists and anyone who wants to make it harder to crack down on the industry through federal regulation.

“That would really trigger a kind of chaotic period where the federal courts 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 Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, previously said. The Vergoand when SCOTUS heard oral arguments on Chevron deference in January.

It’s 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 and not the environmental group NRDC — allowing the then-industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan to stick with a looser interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It shows how Chevron’s deference has been somewhat politically agnostic in the past, even though the most recent effort to overturn it has aligned with a deregulatory agenda.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Chevron’s deference “formed the backdrop against which Congress, the courts, and the agencies—as well as regulated parties and the public—operated for decades. It has been applied in thousands of court 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 medicine safe, and financial markets honest.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent. (In a tricky little detail that doesn’t matter due to the large number the majority had, Judge Jackson’s dissenting opinion only applies to Relentlesssince she refused Bright Loper.)

“If they expelled Chevron, the Court would be inviting irresponsible judges to freely impose their political preferences over those of the political branches – exactly what Chevron sought to prevent,” David Doniger, senior counsel at the NRDC Action Fund and an attorney who litigated the 1984 case, said at a news conference earlier this month.

SCOTUS accepted Chevron deference this year because of two cases brought by the fishing industry: Loper Bright Enterprises v. It is Relentless, Inc. Department of Commerce. The plaintiffs challenged a federal rule that forces fishing companies to pay for the cost of observers on vessels to monitor their operations, saying the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to force them to pay because it is not explicitly written into fisheries conservation. . statute. Lower courts upheld the mandate, applying Chevron deference.

But there is much more at stake in these cases than fishing boats. Trade groups representing a wide range of business interests Gun Owners of America for electronic cigarette companies all pushed to overturn or limit Chevron’s deference.

The fate of net neutrality in the US, for example, has been linked to Chevron deference. The courts have previously deferred 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 imposed on public services to ensure fair access. The FCC changed course on the issue between the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations – with the FCC deciding in April to restore net neutrality rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision risks bogging down the courts with all these essential questions. They used to pass much of this off to federal agencies, a move that is now out of the playbook.