Supreme Court Overrules Chevron Doctrine, Impacting Federal Agencies and Regulations

In a significant move, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron doctrine, a major legal precedent that impacts the functioning of government and the lives of everyday Americans. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority decision, asserting that the role of the judiciary is to determine the law and that the Administrative Procedure Act mandates that courts decide all relevant questions of law. This decision could have far-reaching consequences for federal agencies and the regulations they enforce.

The Chevron doctrine, although less well-known than other legal precedents, holds immense importance. It has played a crucial role in maintaining clean air and water, ensuring food and drug safety, and keeping financial markets fair and honest, as noted by Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent. With the overruling of this doctrine, the day-to-day operations of federal agencies could face significant challenges.

Andrew Mergen, a former attorney at the Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division and now a Harvard Law professor, sheds light on the implications of this decision. He expects agencies to face a surge in defending regulations, leading to a rise in litigation. While Chief Justice Roberts clarifies that the ruling does not apply to past judgments made under the Chevron doctrine, Mergen agrees with Justice Kagan's concerns that opponents of regulations will seize upon this decision as an opportunity to challenge established rules.

Agencies have already prepared for this possibility by developing rules based more on the text of the law and less on deference to agency expertise. However, this shift may hinder the judgment of agencies in critical areas such as public health and safety. Mergen highlights the potential impact on issues like the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act and FDA regulations, which rely heavily on agency expertise.

The question arises as to whether courts possess the ability to effectively interpret highly technical and scientific regulations related to healthcare and environmental policies. The Chevron doctrine was initially established to address this very dilemma, recognizing that judges cannot possess all the expertise required to make such determinations. Mergen emphasizes the importance of deferring to agency expertise, drawing a parallel to how individuals rely on experts in their daily lives.

Looking ahead, this decision may have implications for Congress as well. Lawmakers may need to be more specific in their language when delegating authority to agencies, clearly indicating when agencies are expected to utilize their expertise in rulemaking. The court's ruling, as outlined in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion, leaves room for agency deference if Congress makes its intentions unequivocal.

This overturning of the Chevron doctrine appears to have introduced a new legal landscape, causing some instability in the law. As the nation adjusts to this change, the real-world consequences will become clearer, and both agencies and lawmakers will need to navigate how to proceed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine has significant implications for federal agencies and the regulations they oversee. The impact on thousands of rules and regulations established by agencies like the FDA and EPA could lead to a surge in litigation and challenges to established regulations. The balance between judicial authority, agency expertise, and congressional delegation will need to be carefully navigated in this new legal landscape.