WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulations that affect nearly every aspect of our daily lives, from the food we eat to the cars we drive to the air we breathe, could be at risk under a sweeping Supreme Court decision on Friday.
The Court rejected a 40-year-old legal doctrine commonly known as Chevron, effectively curtailing the power of government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and transferring that power to the courts.
The doctrine, named after a 1984 case involving major energy companies, has served as the basis for upholding thousands of federal regulations but has been a target of conservatives and business groups, who argue it gives too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.
Get your daily news from Canada's National Observer
Here are some takeaways from the Court's decision and its implications:
One less tool for governance
The Chevron decision essentially gave federal agencies the power to make rules to implement unclear laws, and this deference to the executive branch has allowed presidential administrations of both parties to use rulemaking to shape policy, especially at a time of deep partisan divisions in Washington.
Friday's Supreme Court decision means it may become more difficult for the federal government to defend those rules in federal court.
In a written opinion for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said Chevron had given too much power to experts working for the government. “Courts must use their discretion to determine whether a government agency acted within the scope of its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote.
The ruling does not call into question past cases that relied on the Chevron principles, he added.
Federal regulations that affect nearly every aspect of daily life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe, could be at risk from a wide-ranging decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.
Kara Horowitz, a professor of environmental law at the UCLA School of Law and executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the decision “takes yet another tool away from federal regulators' toolbox.”
“By definition, statutes typically do not clearly define how agencies should respond to new or emerging threats, like climate change, that were not fully understood at the time the decades-old statutes were enacted,” she said.
Potential impacts on the environment and public health
Environmental and public health advocates said the decision could set back efforts to reduce air and water pollution, limit toxic chemicals and combat emerging public health threats like COVID-19.
Horowitz called the ruling “another blow to the EPA's ability to tackle emerging issues like climate change.”
Vicki Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the bill “undermines important protections for the American people at the behest of powerful polluters.”
Carrie Severino, a lawyer and conservative activist, called the ruling “a major victory for the rule of law.”
“Chevron's submission was like government bureaucrats exerting two tonnes of judicial pressure on a vulnerable citizen, and that's it,” she said.
Severino said regulators need to “do their job more carefully if they want to win in the future” and resist the urge to push through their own agenda.
The ruling follows a Supreme Court ruling Thursday that blocked enforcement of the EPA's “good neighbor” rules, aimed at limiting smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind communities with smog-causing pollutants.
Expanding the role of parliament?
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the ruling “restores proper balance” to the three branches of government.
“Congress will be under extreme pressure to be more specific in drafting legislation so that the plain text of the bill can be clearly interpreted by courts and federal agencies if it becomes law,” Senator Grassley wrote in a post on the social media site X.
But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said the court's conservative majority is “brazenly eviscerating long-standing precedent, encouraging judicial activism and weakening important regulations.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision “is not at the expense of giant corporate interests, but of ordinary Americans who rely on federal agencies to protect their health and safety.”
What's next?
Craig Segall, vice president of the environmental group Evergreen Action, said the ruling “opens the door” for big companies to challenge the federal rules.
“Repealing the Chevron Doctrine would empower all of President Trump's appointed judges to overrule the agency's expert interpretations of the law and substitute their ideological viewpoints for the informed judgment of career civil servants,” Segal said.
Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer and former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush, said that going forward, federal agencies will “determine what Congress actually wanted.”
“The days of federal agencies filling legislative vacuums are surely over,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the ruling would create a “regulatory black hole that would destroy fundamental protections for all Americans.” Markey and other Democrats have pledged to push legislation to restore the Chevron Doctrine, but the effort is unlikely to gain traction in the narrowly divided Congress.
Are car safety regulations at risk?
Michael Brooks, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said in the short term the decision will limit government action on auto safety and likely cause the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to question itself on new regulations.
“It's going to be a challenge for NHTSA to write rules that ultimately mandate safety improvements,” Brooks said.
But the Specialty Equipment Market Association, which represents companies that make specialized vehicle parts, said the decision will provide relief to small businesses that have been hurt by federal regulatory overreach.
Earlier this year, NHTSA proposed requiring all new U.S. passenger cars to come standard with automatic emergency braking within five years, calling it the most significant safety regulation in the last 20 years.
Automakers are already petitioning authorities to revise the regulations, arguing that it is nearly impossible to meet the performance standards with current technology.
___
Associated Press writer Tom Krisher in Detroit and Mary Claire Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.
