From: allin
The Supreme Court recently overturned the landmark 1984 Chevron decision, known as the Chevron Doctrine, in the case of Seisman v. Loper Bright Enterprises [00:47:22]. This ruling significantly shifts power away from federal agencies and back towards federal judges and courts [00:48:01].
Background: The Chevron Doctrine
Established in 1984, the Chevron Doctrine mandated that government and federal courts generally defer to the interpretations and stances of federal agencies, unless Congress had written specific laws on an issue [00:47:31] [00:53:57]. The original ruling upheld the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act [00:47:48]. This doctrine has been highly influential, cited over 18,000 times by federal courts in 40 years [00:47:52] [00:54:46].
The effect of Chevron was to grant agencies significant authority to create rules and regulations, often bleeding outside the original intent of laws passed by Congress [00:51:07] [00:54:09]. This led to what some describe as an “orgy of rule-making” by federal agencies [00:54:11], with most laws effectively being made by unelected bureaucrats [00:54:17]. This led to the growth of what is referred to as the “administrative state” as a “fourth branch of government” not outlined in the Constitution [00:54:27] [00:55:03].
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court overruled the Chevron Doctrine in a 6-3 decision, with justices voting along party lines [00:47:57]. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the Chevron Doctrine violates the Administrative Procedures Act, a federal law directing courts to review actions taken by federal agencies [00:48:14].
Arguments for Overturning Chevron
- Checks and Balances: The overturn provides a mechanism for companies to appeal regulations to an independent judiciary, allowing for reconsideration of rules that may be “overwrought or misguided” for today’s market landscape [00:49:42]. This creates a more “reasonable check and balance” [00:49:58].
- Limiting Bureaucracy: The Chevron Doctrine incentivized agencies to create more rules and regulations to justify larger budgets, more staff, and increased importance [00:51:24]. The overturn is expected to limit agencies’ authority and reduce bureaucratic overhead and headcount [00:52:12] [00:52:16].
- Congressional Responsibility: The ruling encourages Congress to “do its job” by passing clear laws that define what is and isn’t legal, rather than delegating broad interpretive power to agencies [00:52:52].
- Restoration of Democracy: The overturn aims to restore democracy by limiting the power of the unelected “administrative state” [00:54:31]. Agencies must now demonstrate that their rules are within a statute directed by Congress [00:54:50].
- Judicial Competence: Roberts emphasized that courts are regularly expected to handle technical questions, implying that such decisions are not beyond their scope or ability [00:48:20].
Arguments Against Overturning Chevron
- Loss of Expertise: Justice Kagan, in her critical dissent, argued that agency staff, equipped with scientists and experts, are more likely to possess the necessary expertise to make technical decisions than judges [00:48:28].
- Disruption to Legal System: Kagan also highlighted that the system had functioned for 40 years, and overturning it would create a “massive jolt to the legal system” [00:48:35] [00:48:37].
Impact and Future Implications
The decision is seen by some as a significant step towards reigning in the power of the unelected administrative state [00:55:03]. While it may lead to a “messy” period, it is anticipated to result in a “better, healthier system” [00:53:06].
However, a potential downside is that many important regulatory roles played by agencies, such as environmental protection rules, were never passed as explicit laws [00:52:35]. This could lead to negative consequences for public and environmental health if Congress does not step up to codify these protections into law [00:52:46].
The ruling has been described as a “huge win” [00:53:15] for those advocating for less government spending and regulatory reform and transparency.