The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has overruled the 40-year precedent known as the Chevron Deference. Over these past four decades, the Chevron Deference has yielded to federal agencies (rather than the courts or Congress), as subject matter experts, to resolve ambiguities in regulations. This deference has been controversial and, for those affected by the regulations, consequential. With Chevron overruled, what will it mean for environmental regulations, now and in the future?
As this is a legal matter, we quote heavily from law firm blogs below.
Chevron Deference Background
On June 25, 1984, the SCOTUS ruled in Chevron v. NRDC (Natural Resource Defense Counsel) that, “A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.”
At the time, this ruling was viewed as a victory for conservatives. From the SCOTUS Blog, “Although the Chevron decision – which upheld the Reagan-era Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act that eased regulation of emissions – was generally hailed by conservatives at the time, the ruling eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means.”
Chevron Deference is no more – what will it mean for existing and future environmental laws/regulations?
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
The ruling that overturned the Chevron Deference (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) had nothing to do with environmental law. In that case, a National Marine Fisheries Service regulation requires that herring fishing boats allow an additional person on board their small boats to serve as a monitor, tracking compliance with federal regulations. The fishermen must also pay the monitor’s salary of around $700 per day. Overall, the regulation reduces fishing profits by about 20% (Source: Alliance Defending Freedom).
From the National Law Review, “The key move that made Chevron different was a presumption that Congress always implicitly delegates that authority to an agency to fill in any statutory ambiguity in a statute the agency administers. Under Chevron, instead of a court’s asking whether a given statute conferred the pertinent authority on the agency, the question was reversed. Congress was assumed to want agencies to interpret ambiguous terms, unless the statute indicated (typically expressly) otherwise. That ‘implicit delegation’ is what Loper Bright overturned.”
The Chevron deference, Chief Justice John Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies (SCOTUS Blog).
The Impact of the Chevron Deference
Critics say that Chevron gave too much power to the administrative state and that this authority belongs to the courts or Congress. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws.
From Seyfarth, “Today, the administrative state’s foundation shook as the Supreme Court overruled Chevron, holding that federal administrative agencies are not entitled to deference in interpreting statutes and that courts, not agencies, must be the ultimate arbiters of statutory meaning.”
According to the SCOTUS Blog, Chevron has been cited in more than 18,000 federal court decisions. They also state that Chevron has influenced agencies’ approaches to countless other decisions.
Overturning Chevron and Environmental Decisions
In delivering the opinion for the court, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “…we do not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”
According to the American Bar Association stare decisis is a Latin term that means “let the decision stand” or “to stand by things decided.” In practice, stare decisis has yielded to existing legal precedent.
Justice Roberts’ statement notwithstanding, some of those providing commentary following this recent SCOTUS ruling have expressed concern about the overall vulnerability of laws that, citing Chevron, deferred to agencies.
NEPA, TSCA, PFAS, RCRA …
In discussing potential environmental vulnerabilities, Morgan Lewis writes, “In the environmental context, this includes a number of important laws and programs such as the recently adopted amendments to National Environmental Policy Act regulations; the EPA’s fossil fuel regulations for power plants as well as its tailpipe emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards; the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s offshore wind regulations; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations; numerous regulations interpreting the climate change provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act; and regulations related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, Resource Conservation Recovery Act, and the TSCA.”
Williams Mullen wrote, “Rest assured, Loper Bright certainly will shake up environmental enforcement and rulemaking, but to what extent is yet unclear. One thing it will not do is alter EPA’s existing interpretations that have been approved by courts (likely by way of Chevron). Loper Bright makes explicit the fact that an interpretation of a statute was upheld under Chevron is not a ‘special justification,’ which is necessary to overrule such a holding. Regulated entities should know they are subject to the same environmental laws today as they were pre-Loper Bright.”
No doubt, legal experts continue to opine on what the end of Chevron may mean going forward.
If you need assistance with an environmental issue, including litigation support, contact Jeffrey Bolin, M.S., CHMM, at 248-932-0228, Ext. 125.
Dragun Corporation does not use artificial intelligence in drafting our blogs or any other material.
Alan Hahn drafted this blog. Alan has an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies and completed a graduate program in Environmental Management. He has worked in environmental management for 45 years. He has written hundreds of blogs and articles. His published work includes Michigan Lawyers Weekly, Detroiter, Michigan Forward, GreenStone Partners, Manure Manager Magazine, Progressive Dairy, and HazMat Magazine.
Jeffrey Bolin, M.S., reviewed the blog. Jeff is a partner and senior scientist at Dragun Corporation. He is a published author, frequent speaker, and expert witness. His expertise in environmental due diligence, PFAS, vapor intrusion, and site assessments has led to projects in the US, Canada, and overseas. See Jeff’s Bio.
Follow Dragun Corporation on LinkedIn, X, or Facebook.
Sign up for our monthly environmental newsletter.
Principled Foundation | Thoughtful Advice | Smart Solutions
Established in 1988