The Supreme Court’s recent decision to dismantle the Chevron deference marks a pivotal shift in the landscape of climate and environmental regulation in the United States. This decades-old precedent allowed federal agencies to interpret laws based on their expertise and scientific evidence, significantly shaping the nation’s regulatory framework. Although not immediately clear, the fallout from this decision is expected to open the floodgates for legal challenges against regulations by key agencies like the EPA and the Department of the Interior, both crucial players in the fight against climate change.
The Era of Judicial Deference
Since 1984, the Chevron deference has empowered federal agencies with the final say on ambiguous policies, fostering an environment where expert-driven decision-making thrives without constant judicial intervention. This principle enabled agencies to act decisively on complex issues, bolstering their ability to protect public health and the environment.
The Court’s New Stance
In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, asserted that courts must exercise their independent judgment to determine whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. He criticized the Chevron decision as disrupting the separation of powers, arguing that it improperly enhanced executive agencies’ power at the judiciary’s expense.
This shift aligns with the “major questions doctrine,” which restricts agencies from making rules on issues of significant economic and political importance without explicit congressional directives. Though not clearly defined, this doctrine was notably cited in a 2022 case limiting the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
As Justice Kagan noted in dissent: “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” turning “itself into the country’s administrative czar” from “workplace safety” to “climate change” to “student loans.”
Implications for Environmental Regulation
The repercussions of this ruling for environmental regulation are profound. Agencies like the EPA, which rely heavily on their scientific expertise to implement and enforce regulations, now face increased scrutiny from courts that may lack specialized knowledge. Kym Meyer of the Southern Environmental Law Center expressed concern that the decision sidelines agency expertise, shifting power to judges unfamiliar with the nuanced science and safety concerns that underpin environmental regulations.
Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund (NRDC) highlighted the ruling’s potential to undermine vital protections for the American public, suggesting that it serves the interests of powerful polluters over environmental safeguards. “What it comes down to is this: If Congress has left an agency with a policy choice, the agency should get to make it, not the courts.” -David Doniger, Senior Federal Strategist for NRDC’s Climate & Energy Program.
A Conservative Shift
The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court has gradually distanced itself from the Chevron precedent, favoring a more restrictive approach to agency authority. The Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case, which challenges a National Marine Fisheries Service regulation, exemplifies this trend. In this context, the court’s decision to entertain arguments against Chevron underscores the conservative bloc’s broader agenda to curtail regulatory powers.
Legal and Regulatory Uncertainty
The Biden administration, alongside numerous legal scholars, warned that overturning Chevron could unleash regulatory chaos, with countless plaintiffs challenging past rules. While Chief Justice Roberts downplayed the likelihood of a deluge of lawsuits, the decision introduced significant uncertainty into the regulatory landscape. Lower courts have historically relied on Chevron in a substantial portion of regulatory disputes, with agencies prevailing in most cases. The Department of the Interior, handling critical issues from climate change to endangered species, is among those most affected by this shift.
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent emphasized Chevron’s practical benefits in maintaining clean air and water, safe food and drugs, and honest financial markets. She criticized the majority’s approach, suggesting it transforms the Supreme Court into an overarching administrative authority, potentially undermining decades of effective regulation.
Future of Environmental Protection
The long-term impact of this ruling remains to be seen. It raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between agencies and the judiciary and how effectively federal agencies can continue to protect the environment under increased judicial scrutiny. Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law noted that the decision places courts in a position to interpret ambiguous statutes, potentially leading to more policy choices by judges rather than expert agencies.
In response, Ben Jealous, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, released the following statement, “The Supreme Court majority just asserted a power-grab that will give unelected judges more room to indulge their own policy preferences, and to override the considered judgment of public servants with the scientific and technical knowledge, experience, and accountability required to protect the public from corporate exploitation. Their decision will imperil the ability of the federal government to protect our air, water, and health, tackle the climate crisis, and enact the commonsense safeguards of our bedrock public-interest laws. This radical decision is yet another example of our nation’s highest court moving our country backwards, while Americans everywhere work for a better future. We will continue to aggressively pursue the urgent action needed to protect our health, the climate, and our future.”
Consumer Advocate & Environmental Activist Erin Brockovich stated via X, "Everyone is so brave till their kids develop lymphoma from contaminated water. I’ve sat there with the mothers and fathers. Someone needs to have our backs against the corporations that do this.”
As the regulatory landscape evolves, the EPA and other federal agencies must navigate this new judicial environment, striving to maintain their crucial role in safeguarding the environment amid heightened legal challenges and scrutiny. The battle for effective climate and environmental regulation in the United States has entered a new and uncertain phase with significant implications for the future.
