This decision protects average citizens from arbitrary regulatory fiats, empowers judges to properly interpret statutes and might even force Congress to do a more precise job writing regulations.
It might be lost amid headlines about Joe Biden’s halting debate performance, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday overturning “Chevron deference” is one of the most significant legal developments in decades. The 6-3 vote imposes limits on the ability of federal regulators to interpret laws. The blowback from the presidential debate will be short lived – but the Chevron rebuke will have lasting and positive impact.
“Chevron” refers to a 1984 Supreme Court decision in the case pitting the petroleum giant against the Natural Resources Defense Council in a matter involving Clean Air Act amendments. The court ruled that when interpreting unclear provisions of a federal law that courts must defer to the interpretations of the relevant agency, provided they’re “reasonable.”
However, as the Pacific Legal Foundation explained, Chevron “invites the regulatory agencies to interpret laws and regulations however they want … (a)nd agencies routinely use Chevron to claim more power that was never, in fact, given by Congress.” Anyone who has watched administrative rule-making understands agencies can be arbitrary and driven by their own agendas. Congress should write the rules – not punt to unaccountable bureaucrats.
For a sense of this case’s broad reach, consider that Chevron is “one of the most cited in American law, underpinning 70 Supreme Court decisions and roughly 17,000 in the lower courts,” according to The New York Times. For those of us concerned about the power of the administrative state – the complex web of bureaucracies that essentially write, enforce and judge their own rules – this is a major victory.
“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” the latest decisionexplains. “Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may inform that inquiry,” but courts “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” That’s perfectly reasonable.
This decision protects average citizens from arbitrary regulatory fiats, empowers judges to properly interpret statutes and might even force Congress to do a more precise job writing regulations. It’s a development well worth cheering.
