Legal experts say Chevron deference decision puts Maine’s reliance on federal partners at risk
The U.S. Supreme Court, pictured, issued a decision on a case dealing with a legal precedent that gave federal agencies broad discretion to use their judgment to resolve any ambiguity Congress left in a federal statute. (Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The Supreme Court’s ruling ending the “Chevron deference” will directly impact Maine, since several state agencies work closely with their federal counterparts, relying on them for policy, funding and legal frameworks.
With federal agencies’ power to implement and interpret laws diminished and open to challenges, it makes Maine’s reliance on federal partners risky, which ultimately could result in lack of services for Mainers, according to legal experts.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo reversed a 40-year-old legal precedent of deferring to federal agencies in interpreting relevant laws, and making rules to follow those laws. In the absence of the deference, private companies or individuals can challenge agencies’ interpretations in federal court, handing more power to federal judges to determine how laws should be interpreted and implemented, said Bradley Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy group based in Portland.
“In many cases, the states are exclusively dependent on federal agencies to set standards and protections for the public,” Campbell said.“It will have a sweeping effect at the state level, and that effect will be in every state.”
For example, the uncertainty about the EPA’s authority could directly affect Maine’s ability to enforce the federal Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, Campbell said. When the EPA determines an unlawful discharge of pollution into waterways, that interpretation guides what the state Department of Environmental Protection permits.
Without the Chevron deference, private companies can challenge federal agencies interpretations more easily, said Kaitlin Caruso, an associate professor at University of Maine School of Law. Eventually, this hands federal judges more power to make policy decisions, Caruso added.
“Maine, as a state, benefits from all kinds of federal programs,” Caruso said.It’s sometimes a litigant in cases challenging federal law or challenging challenges to federal law. So Maine is absolutely going to be affected by [the decision] as an important litigant, and insofar as this change in law complicates life in general for federal agencies, it’s going to affect the states that are beneficiaries of any given federal program.”
What the decision does not change
The decision does not directly apply to Maine’s state agencies following Maine law, Caruso said.
Since Maine’s state agencies follow the State Administrative Procedure Act and not the federal act, they still get deference from Maine courts when interpreting and applying state law. That means Maine’s state government agencies still retain all their policy making power.
Caruso explained that is because the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has basically adopted a deference doctrine very similar to Chevron at the state level.
“So unless and until the court changes its mind, deference will still be the law of the land at the state level,” Caruso said.
Lack of confidence in federal agencies
In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the decision is not intended for judges to set policy but rather to make the most accurate interpretation of the laws that Congress passes.
However, there is often no one right answer or interpretation of the law, which is why federal agencies are tasked with using their expertise to make rules and implement laws accordingly, according to Caruso.
The lack of trust in federal agencies may increase, as the lack of deference now increases the risk of doing business , or engaging and negotiating, with a federal agency, because there’s more uncertainty attached to whether agency decisions will hold up, she said.
Since judges are not elected, Campbell believes the Supreme Court ruling also indirectly takes away some public voice in policy decisions.
“If voters are unhappy with the way a federal agency is interpreting or applying the law, they can register that unhappiness and hold the president accountable in the voting booth,” Campbell said.“They don’t have that option with federal judges.”
The post Legal experts say Chevron deference decision puts Maine’s reliance on federal partners at risk appeared first on Maine Morning Star.
