According to the article, the U.S. Supreme Court recently significantly weakened the power of federal administrative agencies to approve regulations in a major decision that could have sweeping implications for the environment, public health and the workplace.

The 6-3 ruling, overturning a precedent from 1984, will shift the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches and hands an important victory to conservatives who have sought for years to rein in the regulatory authority of the “administrative state.”

The lawsuits were filed by two groups of herring fishermen challenging a Commerce Department regulation requiring them to pay the salaries of government observers who board their vessels to monitor the catch. But the decision will net a far wider swath of federal regulations affecting many facets of American life.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council

The decision overturns the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council precedent, established in 1984, that required courts to give deference to federal agencies when creating regulations based on an ambiguous law. Congress routinely enacts open-ended laws that give latitude to agencies to work out — and adjust — the details to new circumstances.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the son of a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, wrote separately to call Chevron Deference “a grave anomaly when viewed against the sweep of historic judicial practice.”

The 1984 decision, he said, “undermines core rule-of-law values ranging from the promise of fair notice to the promise of a fair hearing,” adding that it “operated to undermine rather than advance reliance interests, often to the detriment of ordinary Americans.”

Liberals Say Ruling is “Judicial Hubris”

Justice Elena Kagan, writing a dissent joined by the court’s two other liberals said that, with the overturning of Chevron, “a rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”

“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. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar,” Kagan wrote. The majority, she added, “disdains restraint, and grasps for power.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre described the outcome as “yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards.”

Jean-Pierre said that “Republican-backed special interests have repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court” and that “once again, the Supreme Court has decided in the favor of special interests.”

Conservatives have long sought to rein in regulatory authority, arguing that Washington has too much control over American industry and individual lives. The justices have been incrementally diminishing federal power for years, but the new case gave the court an opportunity to take a much broader stride.

In the case of the fishermen who brought the case, the law allowed the government to mandate the observers but was silent on the question of who had to pay their salaries, which the fisherman argue added roughly $700 a day to their costs. They encouraged the court to rule that agencies couldn’t enact such a requirement without explicit approval from Congress.

The Supreme Court had been trending in that direction for years, knocking back attempts by federal agencies in other contexts to approve regulations on their own. In 2021, for instance, the court’s conservatives struck down a Biden administration effort to extend an eviction moratorium first approved during the Trump administration. Last year, the court’s conservatives similarly invalidated a Biden plan to wipe out student loans of millions of Americans.

Discussion Questions

1. Explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case.

The Chevron doctrine, also referred to as Chevron deference, was an administrative law principle that required federal courts to defer to a federal administrative agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that the U.S. Congress delegated to the agency to administer.

The doctrine originated in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that addressed a change in the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a permitting provision of the Clean Air Act of 1977. The Court established a two-step review approach to be used by courts to examine an administrative agency’s legal interpretations. Pursuant to this approach, courts must consider (1) the U.S. Congress’ clear intent in passing the law and (2) if the court found ambiguities in the law, whether an agency’s rule was reasonably interpreted and not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the law.

The Chevron doctrine served as the legal “lens” through which courts could review, approve, and reject regulations in the context of statutory intent. It also maintained a relatively strict rule of deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of federal law, giving regulators broad authority to make rules related to the environment, health care, immigration, and other subjects of public policy.

Opponents of Chevron deference argued that it infringed on constitutional separation of powers, while supporters of Chevron deference contended that the doctrine allowed administrative agencies to operate efficiently and effectively with expertise.

2. How will the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision affect the balance of power between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches?

In actuality, no one really knows! Your author’s “best educated guess” is that the Supreme Court’s decision to abandon Chevron deference will significantly reduce the power of administrative agencies (it is important to be mindful of the fact that power can be used positively as well as negatively), thereby reducing their efficiency and effectiveness. The end of the Chevron doctrine means that the decision-making of administrative agencies can be more easily challenged through litigation, thereby greater subjecting the agency’s actions to judicial review. Obviously, if an administrative decision is struck down by the federal judiciary, that will increase the need for the U.S. Congress to review and refine statutes they have already enacted and make new law. Your author will leave it to the reader to assess whether Congress is well-equipped to assume that additional responsibility.

One final note regarding the “balance of power” issue, presented in the form of a question for the reader to address: Is it more efficient and effective for an administrative agency to address a particular area of expertise (e.g., the environment, workplace safety, air transportation, etc.) or instead rely on the judiciary and/or Congress? In answering this question, keep in mind that administrative agencies are created to address specific areas of expertise, and filled with experts who are well-trained on the issue—the Environmental Protection Agency for the environment, the Occupational and Safety Health Administration for workplace safety, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for air transportation, etc.

3. Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision? Explain your response.

This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, since the U.S. Congress created the first federal administrative agency, the Department of Foreign Affairs, on July 31, 1789 to “estimate duties payable” on imports and to perform other related trade duties, the rationale for reliance on administrative agencies is clear: By creating and deferring to well-trained professionals with expertise in a particular area, the responsibility of governing can be more efficiently and effectively addressed. This is compared to legislators and/or judges who may have little or no subject matter expertise in a particular area of governance.