In a groundbreaking ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court has reversed a 40-year-old decision, commonly known as Chevron, which has given the federal government expansive powers to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety, and consumer protections. This decision is being touted as a resounding victory for conservative ideals and a blow to the overreach of government agencies.
The court’s six conservative justices overturned the 1984 Chevron decision, a long-time target of conservatives, while the liberal justices dissented. This ruling has the potential to impact billions of dollars in challenges that could arise as a result. Notably, the Biden administration’s Supreme Court lawyer had warned that the move would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.”
The Chevron decision allowed federal agencies to interpret and implement laws when specific details were not explicitly clear. Critics have argued that this gave too much power to unelected bureaucrats at the expense of judicial oversight. In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” This ruling aims to restore the rightful role of judges in upholding the law.
BREAKING: Chevron doctrine, AKA “the Lord Voldemort of administrative law” and “one of the most important principles in all of law” according to some, is overturned by the SCOTUS.https://t.co/ZsVAngBCJw [1]
— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) June 28, 2024 [2]
Notwithstanding, Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, expressed skepticism about the majority’s assurances. She wrote, “The majority is sanguine; I am not so much.”
The cases that led to this ruling involved Atlantic herring fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island who challenged a fee requirement imposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The lower courts used the Chevron decision to uphold a 2020 rule mandating that herring fishermen bear the cost of government-mandated observers who monitor their fish intake. With conservative and business interests rallying behind the fishermen, it became clear that the court, reshaped during former President Donald Trump’s tenure, would seize the opportunity to curtail excessive regulation.
“The Supreme Court just struck down the Chevron Doctrine which has poisoned our country in recent decades. This is a *seismic* ruling. The people we elect to make the laws aren’t the ones who actually make the laws today, it’s unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state. That’s because an older, awful ruling said U.S. courts have to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of the law. As of today, that’s no longer the case & America is better off for it.” – Vivek Ramaswamy
This ruling is part of a broader pattern where the conservative majority of the court has limited the powers of federal agencies and challenged initiatives by the Biden administration, including COVID-19 vaccine mandates and student loan forgiveness. While the court had not invoked Chevron since 2016, lower courts had continued to rely on the doctrine. The current conservative majority on the bench, including Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas, has expressed skepticism towards the unfettered authority of federal agencies.
Critics of the Chevron doctrine argue that it has given judges too few opportunities to exercise their own authority and judgment. They contend that judges should not be rubber-stamping decisions made by government bureaucrats and must have the autonomy to interpret the law. The overturning of Chevron is seen as a step toward rebalancing the separation of powers and restoring accountability.
“Chevron gone. 6-3. Administrative agencies don’t get to decide their own powers. Massive win for the Constitution.” – Mike Davis
The Biden administration, defending the fees in question, warned that overturning Chevron would cause a “convulsive shock” to the legal system. However, environmental, health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and organized labor, frequently aligned with liberal interests, failed to persuade the court to maintain the Chevron doctrine. On the other hand, gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber, and home-building groups stood behind the fishermen, along with conservative interests seeking to limit regulation of air and water pollution.
Ultimately, the fishermen’s lawsuit challenged the regulation’s authority to impose fees that could reach staggering amounts, although no one had paid them as of yet. They argued that Congress had never granted the regulators the power to require fishermen to cover these costs. Despite losing in lower courts, relying on the Chevron decision as a precedent, the fishermen found support from the Supreme Court, leading to today’s landmark ruling.