{"id":1127,"date":"2023-11-06T09:37:24","date_gmt":"2023-11-06T09:37:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/?p=1127"},"modified":"2023-11-07T02:38:07","modified_gmt":"2023-11-07T02:38:07","slug":"the-chevron-debacle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/the-chevron-debacle\/","title":{"rendered":"The Chevron Debacle"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court is set to decide the fate of a landmark administrative law case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council,<\/em>[1]<\/a> during the 2023 term when it hears Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo[2]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>and determines whether Chevron <\/em>should be overruled.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

Chevron<\/em>, in which the Supreme Court upheld a regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency (\u201cEPA\u201d) under the Clean Air Act, was first decided in 1984.[4]<\/a> This decision introduced the famous \u201cChevron two-step,\u201d which is a test used when the court is reviewing an agency\u2019s construction of a statute that the agency is charged with administering.[5]<\/a> Under this test, the court first looks to see whether Congressional intent on the question at issue is clear.[6]<\/a> Chevron\u2019s <\/em>importance is derived from the second step of this test, which grants deference to an agency\u2019s reasonable interpretation when a statute is ambiguous.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

The decision has been particularly helpful for environmental regulations. The Chevron <\/em>doctrine became a key legal defense in agency\u2019s environmental rules.[8]<\/a> Administrators that try to tighten environmental regulations can usually find some room in the statutory language to do so.[9]<\/a> However, not everyone was pleased with this decision. In the years following, several current conservative Supreme Court justices criticized Chevron <\/em>deference and the decision.[10]<\/a> Justice Thomas called it a \u201cserious separation of powers issue,\u201d[11]<\/a> and Justice Gorsuch wrote that \u201cunder Chevron\u2026<\/em>courts are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

On May 1, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/em>.[13]<\/a> \u00a0Loper <\/em>is a case brought by a group of commercial fishing companies and involves a challenge to a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which requires the fishing industry to pay for the costs of observers who monitor compliance with fishery management plans.[14]<\/a> The case is a direct challenge to Chevron<\/em>. The second question of the writ asks, \u201cWhether the Court should overrule Chevron <\/em>or at least clarify that silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.\u201d[15]<\/a> Administrative law scholars say to expect narrowing, if not an outright overruling, of Chevron<\/em> when the Supreme Court decides Loper.<\/em>[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

This outcome could be particularly problematic for the environment. A gridlocked Congress that is unable to pass laws has left agencies like the EPA to craft environmental regulations and protections.[17]<\/a> Stripping the agencies of their deference could lead to legal and administrative chaos.[18]<\/a> An important part of Chevron <\/em>is its recognition that agencies are better equipped to understand and handle issues that come with the area they are regulating; they are subject-area experts.[19]<\/a> For example, the EPA scientists are better equipped to determine how much a state may need to curb their air pollution than a judge would be.[20]<\/a> Throwing complex environmental decisions to a huge federal court system with judges of diverse ideologies, especially when judicial appointments have become increasingly partisan leading to an even wider range of viewpoints, could result in a hodgepodge of judges who are not environmental experts or scientists each deciding \u201cwhich reasonable interpretation is their preferred reasonable interpretation.[21]<\/a> Further, courts are already flooded with cases, and stripping agencies of their power could lead to overwhelmed judges having more cases added to their busy dockets.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court may land a huge blow to environmental protections by stripping agencies of their Chevron<\/em> deference, but it will ultimately depend on the Supreme Court decision in Loper. <\/em><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Chevron v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., <\/em>467 U.S. 837 (1984).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, <\/em>SCOTUSblog, https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo\/ (last visited Oct. 28, 2023).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Chevron<\/em>, 467 U.S. 837.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Josh Gerstein and Alex Guillen, Supreme Court Move Could Spell Doom for Power of Federal Regulators, <\/em>Politico (May 1, 2023, 1:26 PM) https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2023\/05\/01\/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-climate-change-00094670<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Brian Palmer, Thanks, Chevron?, <\/em>NRDC (Aug. 5, 2015) https:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/stories\/thanks-chevron<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Michigan v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 576 U.S. 743, 761 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring); Guiterrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142, 1153 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Michigan v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 576 U.S. 743, 761 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring).<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Guiterrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142, 1153 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Evan Nelson, et al., Chevron Deference Running on Fumes?, <\/em>Holland & Knight (May 19, 2023) https:\/\/www.hklaw.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/2023\/05\/chevron-deference-running-on-fumes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Amy Howe, Supreme Court Will Consider Major Case on Power of Federal Regulatory Agencies <\/em>SCOTUSblog (May 1, 2023, 11:54 am) https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-will-consider-major-case-on-power-of-federal-regulatory-agencies\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Supra, <\/em>note 2.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Ufonobong Umanah, Expect Narrowing of Chevron Doctrine, High Court Watchers Say, <\/em>Bloomberg Law (Oct. 10, 2023, 5:00 AM) https:\/\/news.bloomberglaw.com\/us-law-week\/expect-narrowing-of-chevron-doctrine-high-court-watchers-say<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Gerstein, supra <\/em>note 5.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Jeff Turrentine, What Happens If the Supreme Court Ends \u201cChevron Deference\u201d?, <\/em>NRDC (June 21, 2023) https:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/stories\/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court is set to decide the fate of a landmark administrative law case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council,[1] during the 2023 term when it hears Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo[2] and determines whether Chevron should be overruled.[3] Chevron, in which the Supreme Court upheld a regulation from [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-voice"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paIRgz-ib","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1127"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1127\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1128,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1127\/revisions\/1128"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/joule\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}