On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a new landmark ruling overturning the decades-old Chevron doctrine, fundamentally reshaping administrative law and the authority of federal agencies in the United States.
What is the Chevron doctrine?
The Chevron doctrine originates from the 1984 case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc (Chevron). It established a two-part legal test that courts applied to determine when they should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute. Essentially, it provided guidelines for judges to decide when to follow an agency’s explanation of a law rather than formulating their own interpretation.
The test worked as follows: first, courts needed to determine if Congress’s intent in the statute was clear. If the intent was not explicit, the court deferred to the agency’s interpretation provided it was reasonable. This deference was specific to laws managed by the agencies themselves, such as environmental regulations enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or workplace safety rules overseen by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The importance of the Chevron doctrine over the past few years cannot be understated, after approximately 17,000 cases have relied on it, with 70 of those decisions by the Supreme Court.
Overturning the Chevron Doctrine
The recent ruling stemmed from a challenge to a National Marine Fisheries Service rule requiring the herring industry to pay $710 per day for observers on vessels to collect fisheries data.
By overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court curtailed federal agencies’ power to interpret the laws they administer. Courts therefore must use their own “independent judgment” to interpret statutes from now on, abandoning the “fundamentally misguided” Chevron doctrine and relying instead on “traditional tools of statutory construction”.
Chief Justice Roberts, in his opinion, argued that the Chevron doctrine conflicted with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which mandates courts to apply their own judgment to legal questions. While agencies’ interpretations may still receive “respectful consideration”, especially when based on factual premises, the final authority now lies with the courts. This marks a significant departure from Justice John Paul Stevens’ 1984 stance that judges should defer to agency expertise, stating: “Judges are not experts in the field and are not part of either political branch of government”.
Congress can still grant authority to agencies explicitly when crafting statutes. However, the effect of the recent ruling will be that implied or ambiguous authority in regulations is more susceptible to legal challenges.
Yet, despite Chevron’s reversal, the court specified that prior cases relying on the doctrine remain valid due to the principle of stare decisis, preserving past agency actions.
The Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting opinion, drawn up by Justice Kagan, continues to support the Chevron doctrine, labelling it as a “rule of judicial humility”. Overturning Chevron, Justice Kagan writes, constitutes “a rule of judicial hubris”. The Supreme Court is simply accumulating more power, at the expense of the agencies’ authority, despite the agencies having much more specialised expertise.
Moreover, Kagan highlights that whereas the Chevron doctrine allowed interpretation to be done by those with the most expertise in the subject matter, overturning Chevron “gives courts control over matters they know nothing about”.
The Impact on Environmental and Climate Litigation in the United States
Overturning the Chevron doctrine shifts the power from agencies like the EPA to the judiciary, complicating environmental and climate litigation. Judges, often lacking the technical expertise of agency professionals, will now have greater authority to interpret environmental regulations. This change could lead to increased legal challenges against environmental protections, potentially hindering efforts to address critical issues like air and water quality, endangered species protection, and emissions standards.
Without the Chevron deference, agencies can no longer rely on judicial support for their interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This likely means more frequent and varied legal challenges, creating uncertainty and delays in regulatory enforcement.
Kameran Onley, managing director of North America Policy and Government Relations, expressed concern over this trend, emphasizing that the expertise within agencies is crucial for effectively implementing complex laws enacted by Congress.
Similarly, Earthjustice Director of Strategic Legal Advocacy, Kirti Datla, said, “The Justices should leave statutory decisions that require policy judgments to politically accountable legislators and executive branch agencies”. Earthjustice had filed an amicus brief in Loper Bright in an attempt to persuade the court not to do away with the fisheries policy that was at stake.
The decision to overturn Chevron is seen by many as destabilising the regulatory landscape, making it more challenging to address environmental crises effectively. The shift places a significant burden on the judiciary to interpret highly specialised and technical matters, which could lead to inconsistent applications of environmental laws and policies across different jurisdictions. In turn, this fragmentation may threaten nationwide environmental protection goals in the United States and create a patchwork of interpretations varying from state to state.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine is viewed by critics as a move that could undermine decades of environmental progress, complicating efforts to address the climate crisis.
Comments