Dennis Milazzo
For the past 40 years, federal courts had to defer to federal agencies in their evaluation of statutes that are vague and ambiguous on specifics. Whether those specific statutes covered what constitutes a polluted body of water or what is allowed to be used in our processed foods, federal courts had to abide by the interpretations of those agencies, as they were more qualified to do so. In 1984, the Supreme Court established the Chevron deference, which provided these protections to policy. This ruling was established to make sure that unelected federal judges and government contractors were unable to challenge agency interpretations. See here for the details of that case.
David Doniger, Director of the Climate & Clean Air Program within the Natural Resources Defense Council, explained why Chevron was such an important ruling. He stated in an interview, “What I would think is the way to think about this is that the complexity of the world, the complexity of the problems we face and that the world throws at us has grown. The government's capacity to meet these challenges has to grow too. Otherwise, they go unmet. I mean, pollution is a classic example of where you can't protect yourself as an individual. You need collective action from the government to constrain the dangerous activity.”
On June 28, 2024, in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Roimondo, Secretary of Commerce, the Chevron deference was overturned in a 6-3 decision. Under this decision, courts must “exercise their independent judgment” and may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law “simply because the statute is ambiguous”. In Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion, he stated that Chevron violated the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In their dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan and Sotomayor wrote that if one looks at the history of the APA, one would understand that it leaves room for deference to certain agencies’ interpretations of statutes. The dissent stated that agencies are better suited to interpret the statutes, as at most times experts are providing these evaluations.
The Chevron deference itself came about from a challenged interpretation of the Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency. At its core the ruling was based on environmental protection, so now that it has been overturned, what does that entail for the future of environmental protection?
Throughout the past couple of years, presidential administrations have had to increasingly rely on federal regulation to implement policy changes regarding environmental protections. This is due to the divided state Congress has existed in, which has made it difficult to pass legislation without large amounts of pushback. With this in mind, as well as the situation put in place with the overturning of Chevron, restrictions on emissions and pollution could open up legal challenges from federal judges looking to dismiss the proven expertise of executive branch agencies. In simpler terms, the overturning of the Chevron doctrine allows judges to be radical activists, who could rewrite our laws protecting the environment.
These potential effects on environmental protection are forecasted, but it is impossible to truly know the outcomes in the future. Though it is speculation, it is impossible to deny the fact that this ruling will make it far more difficult for federal agencies to address environmental protections, which is what critics of the original Chevron deference sought out.
Citations
22-451 loper bright enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024). Supremecourt.gov. (n.d.). https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...;
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Oyez.org. (n.d.). https://www.oyez.org/cases/198...;
Roberts, D. (2024, January 12). The chevron doctrine: What it is and why it matters that the Supreme Court might kill it. The Chevron Doctrine: what it is and why it matters that the Supreme Court might kill it. https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-ch...