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’s supposed to lead to more informed decisions by leaning on expertise within those agencies. By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the conservative-dominated SCOTUS decided that judges ought to make the call instead of agency experts.
“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his opinion.
“It would really unleash a kind of chaotic period of time where federal courts are deciding what they think all these laws mean. And that can lead to a lot of inconsistency and confusion for agencies and for regulated parties,” Jody Freeman, director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard, previously told The Verge when SCOTUS heard oral arguments over 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 rather than the environmental group NRDC — allowing the then industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan to stick with a more lax interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It shows how Chevron deference has been sort of politically agnostic in the past, even though the more recent push to overrule it has aligned with a deregulatory agenda.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Chevron deference “has formed the backdrop against which Congress, courts, and agencies — as well as regulated parties and the public — all have operated for decades. It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent. (...)
“If they toss Chevron out, 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, a senior adviser to the NRDC Action Fund and an attorney who litigated the 1984 case, said in a press briefing earlier this month.
SCOTUS took up Chevron deference this year because of two cases brought by the fishing industry: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The plaintiffs challenged a federal rule that makes fishing companies pay for the cost of observers on vessels to monitor their operations, saying 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 there’s a lot more at stake with these cases than fishing boats. Trade groups representing a broad swath of interests from Gun Owners of America to e-cigarette companies have all pushed to overturn or limit Chevron deference.
The fate of net neutrality in the US, for instance, has been tied to Chevron deference. Courts have previously deferred to the FCC on how to define broadband. Is it considered a telecommunications or information service? If it’s telecommunications, then it’s subject to “common carrier” regulations and restrictions placed on public utilities to ensure fair access. The FCC has flip-flopped 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 courts with all these nitty-gritty questions. They used to be able to punt much of that over to federal agencies, a move that’s out of the playbook now.
by Justine Calma, The Verge | Read more:
Image: Cath Virginia/The Verge|Photos via Getty Images
[ed. One of the most consequential SCOTUS decisions lately, and that's saying a lot. The long-standing judicial concept of stare decisis (settled law - please take a moment to read) has definitely gone out the window with this court. See also: What SCOTUS just did to broadband, the right to repair, the environment, and more:]
[ed. One of the most consequential SCOTUS decisions lately, and that's saying a lot. The long-standing judicial concept of stare decisis (settled law - please take a moment to read) has definitely gone out the window with this court. See also: What SCOTUS just did to broadband, the right to repair, the environment, and more:]
***
Since the New Deal era, the bulk of the functioning US government is the administrative state — think the acronym soup of agencies like the EPA, FCC, FTC, FDA, and so on. Even when Capitol Hill is not mired in deep dysfunction, the speed at which Congress and the courts operate no longer seems suitable for modern life. Both industry and ordinary people look to the administrative state, rather than legislators, for an immediate answer to their problems. And since 1984, the administrative state largely ran on one Supreme Court precedent: Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).That decision has now been overturned. Admin law is not always interesting, but the simple fact is when it comes to the day-to-day, agencies are the most impactful part of the federal government. (...)
It is a longstanding doctrine in which courts defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. The underlying reasoning is that subject matter experts within the agency are probably able to make more informed decisions than a judge recently assigned to the case. Chevron deference is strong deference — and the low bar for deferring to agencies means that regulations tend not to get tied up in court.
“The key point of Chevron was that laws like these are policy decisions, and those policy decisions should be made by the political branches responsive to the voters, Congress and the president, not by unaccountable judges with no constituents,” David Doniger, an attorney and senior advisor to the NRDC Action Fund, said in a press briefing earlier this month. Doniger happened to litigate and lose the case that gave Chevron deference its name. (...)
Over the years, Chevron deference has enabled federal agencies to tackle all sorts of issues that legislators have yet to cover — from addressing greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change to regulating broadband access. As the conservative legal movement to disempower the administrative state grew, Chevron deference became — in certain circles — shorthand for government overreach.
