A Supreme Court decision overturning longstanding 'Chevron' case would be recipe for chaos
The Chevron Deference (CD), a doctrine of judicial deference, has been a cornerstone of administrative law since its inception in 1984. It compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous provisions in congressional statutes.
However, recent developments suggest that the Supreme Court may be poised to overturn or significantly narrow this doctrine. This article explores the potential implications of such a move and argues that it could lead to a state of chaos in the administrative law landscape.
The CD emerged from the landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., in 1984. The doctrine is based on the premise that administrative agencies, given their expertise and experience, are better positioned than courts to interpret federal statutes when the law is ambiguous or silent. This principle has allowed agencies to implement health, safety, environmental, financial, and consumer-protection laws with a degree of flexibility, filling in gaps left by Congress.
Despite its longstanding acceptance, the CD has faced criticism, particularly from conservatives who argue that it violates Article III of the Constitution, which confers interpretation of law to the federal courts. Critics contend that the doctrine undermines the duty of courts to interpret the law and allows agencies to rewrite laws in their favor.
Removing the CD could have far-reaching implications. It would shift the power of interpreting ambiguous laws from agencies to courts. This could lead to a significant increase in litigation as parties challenge agency interpretations of laws, potentially resulting in inconsistent rulings and legal uncertainty.
Moreover, the claim that the CD violates Article II of the Constitution is flawed because agencies do not write laws, they write implementing regulations based on the framework established by the laws. The regulations are produced with public and industry input and help both regulators and industry stakeholders understand the requirements of the law. Since 1984 Congress has relied on agency and industry expertise to write reasonable regulations.
The court system is simply not equipped with the necessary expertise to become a regulatory authority. Those who want to remove the CD should note that it is a double-edged sword and each district court in the country may have a unique interpretation of the law.
The following cases illustrate the broad impact of the CD across various sectors and legal issues.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce: These cases challenge the authority of federal agencies to make their best judgments about the detailed rules and standards required to carry out laws that Congress has passed and tasked those agencies to administer.
King v. Burwell: This case involved a dispute regarding whether individuals in states that did not create their own Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges would be eligible for tax credits. The CD was invoked in this case.
Cases involving major federal employment agencies: Every major federal employment agency, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), has relied on Chevron in court.
Moreover, it could hamper the ability of agencies to effectively implement and enforce laws. Agencies often rely on their subject-matter expertise to interpret and apply laws in complex and evolving fields. Without the flexibility afforded by the CD, agencies will struggle to adapt laws to changing circumstances.
Imagine a world where regulations don’t exist, where water and wastewater regulations cannot be enforced, where food safety is questionable, where the transportation industry is no longer required to adhere to safety regulations, where energy corporations are not required to adhere to environmental regulations, and where agricultural food safety regulations do not apply. This is the potential nightmare scenario that could happen should the CD be overturned. If the Supreme Court does indeed overturn the CD the American economy will be at risk along with the health, safety, and welfare of each American citizen no matter their political doctrine.
While the CD has its critics, it plays a crucial role in enabling agencies to effectively implement and enforce laws. Overturning it could lead to a state of chaos, with increased litigation, legal uncertainty, and impaired agency functioning. As the Supreme Court considers this issue, it must weigh these potential consequences against the concerns raised by critics of the doctrine.
Joe Pitts is a retired educator, environmental specialist, and agency executive director who lives in Ozark.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Pitts: Recipe for chaos if Supreme Court undermines Chevron Deference
