SCOTUS overturns 40-year-old Chevron decision, signaling significant change in regulatory powers

In a landmark ruling issued Friday, the Supreme Court struck down a precedent that had stood for four decades, significantly changing the federal regulatory landscape. The decision that overturned the 1984 Chevron ruling was a major victory for business interests and a blow to the regulatory state, – Associated Press News reported.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority voted to overturn the Chevron decision, which allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. This rule allowed agencies to regulate a variety of sectors, including the environment, public health, workplace safety, and consumer protection, without requiring explicit congressional authorization for each action.

Chevron’s decision has long been a target of conservatives, who saw it as an overreach of executive power. By giving federal agencies the power to fill out the details of broadly written regulations, critics saw Chevron as ceding legislative power to unelected bureaucrats. The Court’s liberal justices disagreed, warning that the ruling could undermine the effectiveness of regulatory agencies.

The decision represents the clearest rejection by the conservative-dominated court of what critics derisively call the “administrative state.” The implications of this ruling are enormous, with billions of dollars at risk in future legal challenges as industries and businesses may now have a stronger basis to challenge regulations imposed by federal agencies.

The Biden administration has warned against such a drastic change. The administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer argued that repealing Chevron would create significant uncertainty and disrupt the legal system. The essence of the Chevron Doctrine was to enable experts in federal agencies to interpret and implement complex regulations, a role that some consider more appropriate for people with specialized knowledge than for the judiciary.

The ruling is expected to trigger a wave of litigation as companies and industry groups seek to challenge existing regulations that relied on agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The outcome of these cases could change the regulatory environment in the United States, potentially rolling back protections and standards that have been in place for decades.

Source: Associated Press News