Listen to a synopsis of this article on our SoundCloud Channel
The current Supreme Court, packed with Trump appointees, has little regard for precedent. We first saw this in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center, overturning the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade. In June, SCOTUS once again overturned legal precedent.
The majority conservative SCOTUS overruled the 40-year case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., a 40-year-old case. The Chevron deference doctrine holds that when a law is vague, the federal court should defer to the federal agency’s interpretation. The Court ruled 6 to 3 along political lines.
Two cases challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service requiring the Atlantic herring industry to pay for the costs, an estimated $710 per day, of observers coming on board their vessels to monitor for overfishing and collect data about their catches. The federal agency stopped monitoring in 2023 due to a lack of funds. The agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs while the program was in effect. In the two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentess Inc. v. Department of Commerce challenged federal agencies’ authority to decide how to carry out the laws passed by Congress.
The Chevron Doctrine and Precedent
The Chevron doctrine, cited by federal courts over 18,000 times, allowed federal agencies to write and enforce rules that protect Americans. The Natural Resources Defense Council called it the “backbone of modern American governance.” “Chevron was one of the most important principles in administrative law for 40 years,” Cornell Law School said
“I think the court overruled Chevron because, over time, the more conservative justices concluded that federal agencies had expanded their regulatory powers well beyond those delegated by Congress through an accretion of ‘reasonable’ interpretations of the statutes they administer.” Brian Gray, retired environmental law professor and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California
Tale of Two Views: Chief Roberts v. Justice Kagan
Chief Justice John Roberts, a stalwart conservative, called the Chevron doctrine “fundamentally misguided” in his opinion. He claimed it was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, which directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment.” Roberts concluded that “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”
There is a huge problem with that view. The SCOTUS ruling could give unelected lower-court judges the power to overturn the decisions by federal agencies. That includes environmental regulations. For example, the SCOTUS decision in Sackett v. EPA overturned the EPA’s and the Army Corps of Engineers’ interpretation of the Clean Waters Act term “waters of the U.S.” The federal agencies determined that the term included discharges into waterways that “significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of those waterways. SCOTUS limited the term to continuously flowing wetlands and tributary streams next to a navigable river or lake.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said that the ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.” She pointed out that the Chevron doctrine “has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions…it has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.”
In other words, Justice Kagan laments overturning a four-decades-old precedent that will have far-reaching effects. Expect Sackett-type decisions in lower-level courts. The interpretations of laws protecting our environment, including air and water, could be overturned. The Wild West of environmental regulation is upon us, brought forth by six conservative SCOTUS judges with an extreme agenda.
Paint the Federal Government Blue
If there ever was a reason to vote blue in November, the overruling of the Chevron doctrine is it. Instead of deference to federal agencies, SCOTUS gave unelected lower-court judges the power to interpret laws in ways that would go against science and the will of the people. While the SCOTUS justices hold their seats for life, Congressional members do not. By electing a Democratic president, keeping the Senate blue, and taking back the House, we ensure that Congress reverses the damage done.
