Ruling overturns longstanding Chevron doctrine, a 40-year guide for courts and regulators.
The US Supreme Court has significantly restricted the authority of federal agencies by overturning a longstanding legal principle that has allowed them considerable discretion in setting standards across various domains, from environmental protection to securities regulation.
At the heart of the 6-3 decision issued on Friday is the "Chevron deference," originating from a 1984 Supreme Court case involving Chevron Corporation. This doctrine directed courts to defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws and regulations written by Congress.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts cannot automatically defer to an agency's interpretation simply because a statute is unclear. Legal experts anticipate that this reversal of the Chevron doctrine could lead to increased litigation as parties challenge agency standards. It may also prompt regulators to draft narrower rules to reduce the risk of legal challenges.
While the case ostensibly concerned government oversight of commercial fishing vessels, the decision, split along ideological lines, underscored its broader implications. Roberts, speaking for the conservative majority, criticized Chevron as fundamentally flawed, arguing that it had altered judicial oversight of agency actions without proper consideration of the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs such reviews.
Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting with the liberal justices, argued that the Court had disregarded decades of precedent and the entrenched role of Chevron in governmental operations and regulatory practices. She warned of significant disruption, noting the doctrine's pervasive influence on thousands of judicial decisions over the years.
The majority attempted to mitigate the ruling's impact by specifying that previous decisions applying Chevron would remain intact, including landmark cases like those involving the Clean Air Act.
Consumer and investor groups voiced concern over the ruling's potential repercussions, fearing reduced government capacity to protect public interests, affecting everything from food safety to automotive safety standards.
0 Comments