The Chevron doctrine overturned: what does the US Supreme Court decision mean?

A scenario that the balance of power in favor of conservative judges in the United States suggested came to fruition Friday: the Supreme Court revoked the Chevron Doctrine, a legal precedent used since 1984 by federal agencies responsible for enforcing laws. Deciphering a major decision that is shaking up American administrative law.

What is the Chevron Deference Doctrine?

It is a principle that originates from the cause Chevron c. National Resources Defense Councila dispute which arose in the wake of the coming to power of Republican President Ronald Reagan and which the highest court of the United States ruled unanimously in 1984.

L’ONG The Natural Resources Defense Council was challenging a change made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to a definition included in its policy to combat air pollution, the Clean Air ActThis change altered the scope of the law and opened the door to polluting industrial projects.

After a court determined that the new definition ofEPA was to be overturned, oil giant Chevron appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

At the end of the hearings, the six Supreme Court justices ruled that when federal laws passed by Congress are ambiguous and thus open to different interpretations, the reading made by the federal agency responsible for implementing the law should prevail.

From this judgment, which constituted a defeat for environmental defense groups, was born this principle of deference towards agencies called the Chevron doctrine.

If the law passed by Congress is unclear – whether it is the result of a compromise between parties, a desire to give agencies room to maneuver in order to adapt to possible changes, or an abstruse choice of words –, the court does not simply impose its own interpretation of the lawstates the 1984 decision.

He leaves it to the agency’s interpretation, provided that it is judged reasonable.

What led the Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron Doctrine this week?

Cited by the courts – and contested by conservative movements that want to reduce state control over businesses – for 40 years, the Chevron deference doctrine has this time been challenged in two lawsuits led by commercial herring fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Accustomed to welcoming observers on their boats to ensure that their activities comply with federal law, these fishermen were unhappy to find, in 2020, that a new regulation now forced them to cover the inspectors’ salaries. The bill was around $710 per day, for about twenty visits per year.

In seeking to challenge this regulation, adopted by the federal agency of the Department of Commerce responsible for fisheries, the National Marine Fisheries Servicethe fishermen came up against the Chevron doctrine.

A trial court thus ruled in favor of the government agency, citing the Chevron case, a decision which was subsequently upheld on appeal.

Although the boat monitoring program has been suspended due to lack of federal funding since April 2023 and fishermen have been reimbursed, the challenges have continued all the way to the Supreme Court.

The case aroused the interest of lawyers and conservative lobbies, including groups in favor of firearms and electronic cigarettes or from the agricultural and construction sectors, who quickly showed solidarity with the fishermen.

As the arguments before the Supreme Court approached last January, the New York Times revealed that lawyers representing New Jersey fishermen were affiliated with a lobby funded by the chairman of the board of directors of the multinational petrochemical company Koch Industries, Charles Koch.

The billionaire, who has often decried state interventionism, is a major funder of several think tanks opposed to increased environmental regulations.

Why end the Chevron Doctrine?

In its judgment – ​​which reflects the divide between the six conservative judges, in the majority, and the three liberal, dissenting judges – the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts against the fishermen. The doctrine of deference to government agencies has been canceled.

Chevron is cancelled. […] Agencies have no special jurisdiction to resolve ambiguous laws. That is the job of the courts.

In his ruling, Chief Justice John G. Roberts echoed the argument expressed many times by critics of the Chevron doctrine: why rely on an agency when judges can use their discretion? discernment and make an informed decision?

Administrative Procedures Act”,”text”:”Chevron defies Administrative Procedures Act rules”}}”>Chevron defies the rules ofAdministrative Procedures Actthe law that governs the work of government agencies, Justice Roberts wrote. Under those rules, he noted, it is the court’s job to interpret legal provisionswhile agencies are responsible for developing and enforcing federal regulations.

Opponents of the Chevron Doctrine argue that deference to government agencies gives discretionary power to the officials who work there, without accountability. Bureaucrats are thus left to judge cases that directly concern them.

By relying on the interpretation of agencies, subject to the will of governments which can change from one election to another, the doctrine would also allow presidents to abuse their prerogatives.

During hearings in January 2024, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that the Chevron doctrine was responsible for regulatory about-face that occur every time a new president is elected.

Far from agreeing with the arguments of her conservative counterparts, Judge Sonia Sotomayor argued that the agencies have expertise that judges do not have.

Chevron formed the backdrop against which Congress, the courts, and agencies, […] have been based for decades. It has been applied in thousands of court decisions.

Elena Kagan, who wrote a dissenting opinion in Friday’s ruling, agreed, saying that Congress writes its laws knowing that they will be will inevitably contain ambiguities that others will have to resolve; gaps that others will have to fill.

And he prefers that these others be the responsible agency. [des lois]not a courtshe insisted.

What happens next after the revocation of this principle?

Justice Kagan, who accused conservative justices of taking themselves for the tsars of the country’s administrationwas concerned about the disruption that the disappearance of the doctrine might cause.

To calm the concerns of some, including conservative Amy Coney Barrett, who had expressed concern about the flood of litigation that could overwhelm the courts if the Chevron doctrine were to be overturned, Justice John G. Roberts said the ruling did not overturn previous decisions, stare decisis”,”text”:”soumises au principe stare decisis”}}”>subject to the principle decided.

While opponents of the Chevron Doctrine argue that the principle undermines the separation of powers by giving more weight to the executive, several experts have argued that revoking the doctrine would create an imbalance… in favor of the judiciary.

Congress can still use vague language to avoid making tough policy choices, but those policy choices will now be made by the courts”,”text”:”Abandoning Chevron risks worsening rather than improving the imbalance presumed separation of powers – Congress will still be able to use vague language to avoid making difficult policy choices, but those policy choices will now be made by the courts”}}”>Abandoning Chevron risks worsening rather than improving the alleged imbalance in the separation of powers – Congress will still be able to use vague language to avoid making difficult policy choices, but those policy choices will now be made by the courtswrote at the beginning of June Jody Freeman, professor of law at the Harvard Law School and former energy and climate change adviser to the Obama administration.

Will it be up to judges to determine pollution standards to be respected to protect the health of Americans instead ofEPA? To decide what constitutes a threat to species whose status is precarious? These are the kinds of questions that courts could be called upon to decide instead of experts, according to the specialist.

The revocation of the Chevron Doctrine is part of a series of decisions that have limited the power of federal agencies, particularly those that work to protect the environment and public health.

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked implementation of the Biden administration’s plan to combat air pollution, marking the third setback in as many years for theEPAwhose powers were alternately weakened in 2022 and 2023 by Supreme Court rulings on the agency’s ability to limit GHG emissions from power plants and protect wetlands.

Like theEPAfederal agencies responsible for crafting and enforcing laws that affect education, labor and social services could also be more exposed to lawsuits – and attacks from Republican lawmakers.

In a memo to its members this week, the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of the Republican Party, said the Chevron dismissal was an opportunity to woke”,”text”:”roll back the woke agenda”}}”>move back the agenda woke de l’administration Biden.

Also read and listen: