For 40 years, the chevron deference doctrine has granted federal agencies the power to provide expert opinion on how bills in the US should be interpreted. The Supreme Court decision on Friday to overturn this ruling could have disastrous consequences for federal ability to provide expert perspective on and enforce environmental protections.
—
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
The 1984 US court case was over the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the definition for “stationary source” enacted through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. NRDC argued that the interpretation was too broad and allowed for unpermitted alterations within industrial plants. The case was taken up by the US Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the EPA. While this ruling was at the time in favor of less strict regulations, it set an important precedent, called the “chevron deference” for future environmental policy cases. The court ruled that if the intention of Congress is clear within a bill, it must be followed by both courts and federal agencies. However, if the bill is deemed to have multiple possible interpretations, courts must defer judgment to the expert opinion of the agency responsible for enforcement of the bill, as long as the interpretation is deemed reasonable.
The Cases Challenging the Doctrine
In early 2024, in some of its first hearings of the new year, the Supreme Court heard arguments from two related cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, both regarding the requirement of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fishing vessels to pay for the fees of on-board monitoring personnel. These monitoring personnel are required on commercial fishing boats to ensure that catch limits and other laws protecting fish stocks and marine resources are followed. This rule by the NMFS was part of their enforcement of the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In both cases, the plaintiff has asked the Supreme Court through appeal processes to reduce or eliminate the chevron doctrine as they view it as an overreach of power by federal agencies.
What Does This Mean for Environmental Policy?
The overturning of the chevron doctrine now means that federal court judges are able to provide their own interpretation of laws, that will then become the enforced definitions and decisions of federal acts. Environmental NGOs fear that this will allow for biased, non-expert rulings to weaken and prevent critical application of public policy, especially related to environmental protection. This could mean that foundational legislation like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act could all be at risk of significant weakening under court systems and legislative sessions that favor industrial activity, leaving no room or ability for experts within federal agencies like the EPA to create and enforce rules they deem necessary to protect public health and natural resources.
You might also like: The Most Important Climate Litigation Cases of 2024 and Why They Matter
