The Supreme Court Just Declared War on Regulatory Agencies and the Environment
In a move that will send shockwaves through the regulatory community, the Supreme Court has overturned a decades-old doctrine that allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. The decision, which was met with glee by industry lobbyists, effectively strips agencies of their ability to regulate industries and protect the environment.
The Chevron doctrine, named after a 1984 Supreme Court case, allowed courts to defer to federal agencies when there were disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in laws passed by Congress. This meant that agencies, rather than judges, got to decide how to implement regulations, giving them the expertise and flexibility to respond to new situations.
But the Supreme Court, dominated by conservative justices, has now decided that judges should make the call instead. In a scathing opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities, and that courts do.
This decision is a major win for industries that have long sought to limit government regulation. It’s a blow to environmental groups, consumer advocates, and anyone who cares about public health and safety. The implications are far-reaching, and could affect everything from pollution limits to consumer protections.
The decision has already been hailed by industry groups, who see it as a way to hamstring regulatory agencies and prevent them from imposing new rules. The fishing industry, in particular, has been pushing to overturn Chevron deference, and has succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to take up the issue.
But the consequences will be felt far beyond the fishing industry. The fate of net neutrality in the US, for example, has been tied to Chevron deference. Courts have previously deferred to the FCC on how to define broadband, and the agency has flip-flopped on the issue multiple times. With Chevron deference gone, the FCC will now have to make the call, and it’s unclear what the outcome will be.
The decision also raises questions about the role of judges in making policy decisions. Is it really the job of judges to interpret complex laws and regulations, rather than leaving it to the experts at federal agencies? The answer is no, and this decision is a major step backwards for regulatory accountability.
In the end, this decision is a victory for special interests and a blow to the public interest. It’s a reminder that the Supreme Court is not always a neutral arbiter of justice, and that its decisions can have far-reaching consequences for our society.
