Animal Legislation Update Che
Chevron is Gone n is Gone
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., was a
landmark decision in U.S. administrative law. Decided in 1984, the case established the principle of “Chevron deference,” a doctrine that directs courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers. Originating from the Reagan administration,
the EPA changed its interpretation of the term “source” in the Clean Air Act to allow greater
pollution. The NRDC challenged this new interpretation, and the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in favor of the NRDC. However, SCOTUS reversed this decision, ruling in favor of the EPA. Justice John Paul Stevens authored the decision that introduced
a two-step process for judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes - courts had to determine if Congress had directly spoken to the precise issue. If the intent of Congress was clear, that ended the matter. If the statute was ambiguous, the court determined if the agency’s interpretation was reasonable. If it was, the court would defer to the agency’s expertise. Chevron has faced scrutiny and calls for elimination, or at least some changes. In the more recent past, more stringent requirements for deferring to agency interpretations have been introduced, as well as challenges to the extent of agency authority. This ruling has had a profound impact on administrative law,
granting agencies leeway to interpret and implement federal statutes.
by Vanessa Gagne,
Government Relations & Communications Consultant
That is until now. At the end of June, SCOTUS issued a landmark 6-3 ruling to overturn Chevron deference, reversing decades of Alphabet Agency overreach. Ending Chevron deference means that courts will no longer automatically defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Instead, judges have more authority to interpret laws themselves, potentially leading to less predictable and more varied rulings depending on the court and judge involved. Courts may revert to the Skidmore Standard, where an agency’s interpretation is given weight only to the extent it is persuasive, rather than being
automatically deferred to as long as it is reasonable. Agencies like the EPA and FDA could face greater challenges in implementing regulations. Their interpretations of statutes would be subject to closer judicial scrutiny, potentially slowing down or complicating the regulatory process. This also includes agencies like the USDA, OSHA, and CPSC. The change could lead to more litigation as those being regulated and advocacy groups challenge agency decisions more frequently, knowing that courts will review statutory interpretations instead of deferring to the agency. This is favorable able to more effectively weigh in on these issues. However, there is the potential for increased uncertainty for businesses and other stakeholders about the meaning and application of regulatory requirements. Differing interpretations of the same statutes could lead to
inconsistent policy enforcement and regulatory outcomes across different jurisdictions. Proponents of reducing agency power argue it will prevent
regulatory overreach, while opponents warn it could undermine effective governance and protections. It is important to remember
implement rules and regulations we are not allowed to vote on.
to continuing growth of government jobs, all of which we have no say whatsoever on their job performance. The end of Chevron means a more active role for our courts
in interpreting laws and will change the regulatory landscape in ways we are only able to speculate for now. Time will tell how it all ends up; the hope is that there is a return to more checks and balances within our government and a greater reliance on industry expertise.
See you down the road, Vanessa
OABA ShowTime Magazine • AUGUST 2024 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32
