By James J. Devine
The stacked U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has delivered a critical blow to the regulatory framework that has governed American administrative law for the past four decades.
By dismantling the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine, the corrupt corporate court has effectively undermined the capacity of federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform their vital roles in protecting public health and the environment.
This decision not only disrupts the balance of power between the branches of government but it also threatens to exacerbate regulatory confusion and inefficiency because there is a lot of money to be made in polluting the planet.
Chevron deference, established by the Supreme Court in 1984, granted federal agencies the authority to interpret ambiguous statutory language within their purview, provided their interpretations were reasonable.
This doctrine recognized that specialized agencies, such as the EPA, have the expertise necessary to make informed decisions about complex regulatory matters.
The ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises overturns this precedent, shifting the interpretive power from agencies to federal judges who, despite their legal acumen, lack the specific technical knowledge and policy experience required to make nuanced regulatory decisions.
The whole reason conservative lawmakers worked so hard to stack the judiciary was to allow political extremists to advance bizarre, unpopular, and incomprehensible ideas like the forthcoming nationwide ban on abortion, birth control, and blowjobs that is such a high priority for the GOP’s puritanical fascist faction.
The ruling has profound implications for the functioning of federal agencies because law enforcement already has a difficult job, and chaos will only make it tougher to hold corporate polluters accountable.
Agencies like the EPA, which are tasked with enforcing laws designed to safeguard the environment and public health, rely on the Chevron deference to apply regulations based on expert knowledge and evolving scientific understanding.
Without this deference, judges without qualification in science will now have the final say in interpreting ambiguous statutory language, potentially leading to inconsistent and unpredictable regulatory outcomes but most importantly, letting corporate killers off the hook as they continue to poison our land, air and water.
This shift threatens to paralyze agencies that are already under significant pressure to balance complex policy issues with limited resources.
The decision disrupts the intended balance of power within the federal government. The separation of powers principle dictates that Congress legislates, the executive branch implements laws, and the judiciary interprets them.
However, by stripping agencies of their interpretive authority, the judiciary has expanded its role into areas traditionally reserved for the executive branch.
This judicial overreach undermines the expertise and discretion that agencies are supposed to wield in executing their mandates.
As Justice Elena Kagan aptly noted in her dissent, the Supreme Court has effectively positioned itself as the “country’s administrative czar,” a role that the Constitution did not envision for the judiciary.
“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” wrote Kagan. “As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
NRDC strategist David Doniger put it even better when he said, “What it comes down to is this: If Congress has left an agency with a policy choice, the agency should get to make it, not the courts.”
Critics of the Chevron deference argue that it allows agencies to impose onerous regulations without adequate oversight. However, this view overlooks the fact that federal agencies are subject to significant scrutiny and legal challenges.
In practice, agencies often face litigation from various stakeholders, and only a fraction of their rules are upheld in court. The Chevron doctrine did not grant agencies unchecked power; rather, it allowed them to use their specialized knowledge to interpret and implement laws within a framework that provided consistency and stability.
The dismantling of the Chevron deference invites a new era of legal and administrative chaos. With over 850 federal judges across numerous circuits, the potential for divergent interpretations of the same regulatory language is substantial.
This variability could lead to a patchwork of regulations, further complicating compliance for businesses and increasing uncertainty for regulatory enforcement.
The result may be a bureaucratic quagmire where judicial decisions frequently overturn agency rules, forcing Congress to repeatedly step in to clarify laws, thus delaying and complicating necessary regulatory adjustments.
Those ‘onerous regulations’ are rules that keep sewerage and oil out of your drinking water or prevent swindlers from robbing you blind.
In sum, the Supreme Court’s elimination of the Chevron deference represents a significant shift in the regulatory landscape, one that diminishes the ability of federal agencies to effectively implement and enforce critical protections.
This ruling threatens to erode the expertise-driven governance that has characterized American regulatory policy and may usher in a period of increased legal uncertainty, administrative dysfunction, and flat-out corruption.
The true cost of this decision will be borne by the public, who rely on robust regulatory oversight to safeguard their health, environment, and overall well-being.