Chevron Doctrine: An established legal principle that required courts to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws, provided the agency's interpretation was reasonable.
Importance: Supported regulatory efforts and allowed experts to fill gaps in ambiguity left by Congress.
The Supreme Court Decision
Recent Cases:
Lur Bright Enterprises vs. Gina Raimondo (Secretary of Commerce)
Relentless Inc. vs. Department of Commerce
Subject: Regulation of Herring fishing.
Outcome: Overturned Chevron Doctrine, allowing courts to directly interpret ambiguities in laws without deferring to agencies.
Implications
Administrative Law: Major shift of power from executive agencies to judiciary.
Courts and Judges: Will now interpret technical and scientific details previously handled by experts; examples include provisions under the Endangered Species Act, the Public Health Services Act, and the 1987 Overflights Act.
Congressional Laws: Often ambiguous to provide flexibility for agencies; Chevron allowed this flexibility to function.
Historical Context and Evolution of Chevron
1977 Clean Air Act Amendment: Required new source review for new stationary pollution sources.
Reagan Administration's Interpretation: Only if overall pollution of a project increased, the regulation would be triggered, a viewpoint Chevron ultimately supported.
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Lawsuit: Challenged Reagan's EPA interpretation in what ultimately became the basis for the Chevron decision.
Conservative Movement and Judicial Interpretation
Opposition: Conservative movement aimed to overturn Chevron for decades to limit executive agencies' power to enact regulations based on expert opinions, and make it easier to challenge Democratic administrations' interpretations of laws.
Supreme Court Justices' Opinions: Conservative justices like Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed severe criticisms of Chevron.
Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion
Framing: Overturning Chevron as correcting a historical judicial error, asserting courts must independently interpret laws.
Historical Justifications: Quoted Marbury v. Madison and The Federalist Papers to support the independence of judicial interpretation from agency deference.
Justice Elena Kagan's Dissent
Key Points: Highlighted the impracticality of judges deciding highly technical and scientific issues; pointed out potential chaos and inconsistencies resulting from the ruling.
Examples: Mentioned specific cases where agency expertise was critical, like pharmaceutical qualifications under FDA, and definitions under the Endangered Species Act.
Statutory Silence: Addressed that congressional laws sometimes leave gaps, intentionally or not, and that executive agencies were better equipped to handle these.
Broader Impacts on Government and Society
Increased Litigation: Courts now face a flood of cases challenging federal regulations, creating delays and inconsistencies in policy implementation.
Agency Changes: Agencies may either slow down new regulations or avoid them altogether due to anticipation of legal challenges.
Potential Outcomes: Decreased regulatory effectiveness on public health, environmental protections, financial safety, and more.
Corner Post Inc v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Statute of Limitations Removal: Parties can now challenge regulations long after their enactment if they begin facing harm later, leading to perpetual legal disputes over long-standing rules.
Implication for Judges: Increased workload interpreting and reinterpreting regulations.
Conclusion
Potential Consequences: Overturning Chevron and relaxing statute limitations will likely result in regulatory instability, a deluge of litigation, and a significant burden on the judiciary.
Learning Resources
Brilliant.org: Recommends courses on logic and machine learning for judges and others interested in improving technical skills for understanding complex regulations.