Decision expected to shift more interpretive power to the courts
The Supreme Court overturned the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine in a significant ruling that limits federal regulatory power.
The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, had directed courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws.
The decision was split along ideological lines, with the conservative majority voting to overturn Chevron. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called the Chevron framework “unworkable” and said the court was ending “our 40-year misadventure with Chevron deference.”
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal regulations across various sectors, including environmental protection, public health, workplace safety, and consumer protections.
Proponents of overturning Chevron argue it will reduce the power of unelected bureaucrats and increase accountability.
Critics warn the decision could lead to legal and administrative chaos, making it harder for agencies to respond to new challenges and implement regulations.
The case that led to this decision involved Atlantic herring fishermen challenging regulations imposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The ruling is seen as a victory for business interests and conservative legal groups who have long sought to limit federal regulatory power.
The decision is expected to shift more interpretive power to the courts, potentially leading to inconsistent rulings and increased litigation over agency regulations.
Here are some key points on how this ruling might influence Congress and the legislative process:
Increased Need for Legislative Clarity
- Explicit Statutory Language: Congress will need to draft laws with greater precision and clarity to avoid ambiguities that could lead to varied judicial interpretations. This means that legislative language will need to be more detailed and specific to ensure that the intent of the law is clear and less open to interpretation by federal agencies or courts.
- Legislative Burden: The ruling places a greater burden on Congress to address complex and technical issues directly, rather than relying on agencies to fill in the gaps. This could slow down the legislative process as lawmakers may need to spend more time and resources on crafting detailed legislation.
Shift in Power Dynamics
- Judicial Interpretation: The decision shifts interpretive power from federal agencies to the judiciary. Courts will now play a more active role in interpreting statutes, which could lead to inconsistent rulings and increased litigation as different courts may interpret the same law differently.
- Agency Expertise: By reducing deference to agency expertise, the ruling may undermine the ability of agencies to effectively implement and enforce regulations based on specialized knowledge. This could impact areas such as environmental protection, public health, and safety regulations.
Potential Legislative Responses
- Codifying Agency Powers: Congress might respond by explicitly codifying the powers and responsibilities of federal agencies in new legislation to ensure that agencies retain the authority to interpret and implement laws within their areas of expertise.
- Increased Oversight: There may be an increase in congressional oversight of federal agencies to ensure that they are acting within the bounds of their statutory authority. This could involve more frequent hearings and reviews of agency actions.
Broader Implications
- Regulatory Uncertainty: The ruling could lead to regulatory uncertainty as businesses and other stakeholders may challenge existing and new regulations in court. This could create a more volatile regulatory environment, impacting long-term planning and compliance efforts.
- Impact on Policy Areas: Key policy areas such as environmental regulation, healthcare, and financial oversight could be particularly affected. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may face challenges in enforcing regulations without clear legislative mandates.
The Biden administration had strongly defended the Chevron doctrine prior to the ruling. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the justices to leave the doctrine in place, arguing that it had “deep roots in this Court’s jurisprudence.” The administration warned that overturning Chevron could lead to significant disruption. The Biden administration had argued that discarding Chevron could have a “disruptive impact on the legal system” .
Prior to the ruling, the administration emphasized that Chevron was crucial for leveraging agencies’ expertise and curbing judges’ policymaking roles. The administration, along with environmental advocates, labor unions, and civil rights groups, argued that broad statutes passed by Congress necessitate agency expertise to tackle complex issues.
The decision is seen as a significant setback for the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda, particularly in areas like environmental protection, public health, and workplace safety.
The decision is expected to complicate the administration’s efforts to implement regulations across various policy areas.
Bottom line: This ruling represents a significant shift in administrative law and is likely to have broad impacts on how federal agencies interpret and implement laws passed by Congress. It may lead to more challenges of agency regulations in court and could potentially slow down or complicate the regulatory process across various sectors of government.
The ag and energy sectors are already asking how this ruling could impact energy and environmental regulations. Biofuel interests are wondering if this will impact the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Given that EPA has more leeway to set RFS levels without the mandates in law, it could. But the RFS levels have been challenged before and the resolution takes a long time, so it really doesn’t affect the mandates, i.e., the 2023 standards included 250 million gallons to meet a court remand of the 2016 standards.
Of note: The Supreme court ruling said decisions made previously that relied on Chevron would not be subject to review.