In a pivotal legal battle, business groups and conservative activists are challenging the longstanding Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council precedent, raising concerns about the potential erosion of agency expertise and the establishment of uniform, nationwide rules.
This corporate political assault seeks to replace the judgment of experts in federal government bureaucracy, prompting a clash with public health, labor, and environmental advocates who stress the importance of agency expertise, especially in scientific and medical fields.
The assault on the Chevron doctrine, a unanimous 1984 ruling written by the late Justice John Paul Stevens, could reshape the landscape of regulations and virtually cripple the ability of government to implement rules that protect consumers, the environment, and the free market.
The doctrine established that when a statute is ambiguous, judges should defer to an agency’s interpretation as long as it is reasonable and based on a permissible reading of the law.
Columbia University law professor Thomas Merrill, an expert in administrative law, views the Chevron decision as an accidental landmark that became a leading statement on the division of authority between agencies and courts in interpreting statutes. The case, arising from the EPA’s 1981 interpretation of “stationary sources” for anti-pollution permitting purposes, has been pivotal in upholding agency interpretations over the years.
Conservative activists are leveraging a pair of cases related to federal monitoring requirements in the fishing industry to challenge Chevron. The cases involve regulations from the National Marine Fisheries Service that require vessels to undergo regular monitoring and cover the costs when third-party observers are used. If successful, this challenge could lead to a significant shift in power, requiring most government regulations to be determined in Congress rather than through agency expertise.
The concern is not limited to legal scholars and experts; it has gained traction among businesses, including the network founded by Koch, which has long sought to topple Chevron. The Supreme Court’s consideration of these cases signals a potential reevaluation of the Chevron doctrine, with conservative justices, including those appointed during the Trump administration, tipping the ideological balance.
Legal experts anticipate that a successful challenge to Chevron could have far-reaching consequences, affecting the delicate balance between agencies and the judiciary in interpreting statutes. The clash between those advocating for a rollback of agency deference and supporters of maintaining agency expertise highlights the broader debate over the role of government regulations in safeguarding public interests.
As the Supreme Court hears arguments on this critical matter, the nation awaits a decision that could shape the future of regulatory authority, potentially paving the way for a new era with profound implications for democracy, separation of powers, and the role of expert judgment in policymaking.