In 1984, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision upholding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations under the Clean Air Act that allowed states to treat all pollution from a unified group of industries as a single source for regulatory purposes. A group of environmental groups challenged the regulations, arguing that they allowed the operation of equipment that emitted pollutants that would not meet regulatory standards on their own.
This was a technical exercise in legal interpretation, but the long-term impact of the case had little to do with pollution or the intricacies of the Clean Air Act. Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., It was a small revolution in administrative law.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs regulatory agencies, directs courts to interpret relevant statutes and to litigate agency rules. Chevron A new standard was created. When a statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to the agency’s interpretation. This is “Chevron “I respectfully request that you please.”
Chevron At first glance, deference seemed reasonable enough: Regulatory statutes and the rules that flow from them were thought to be so complex that they required subject matter expertise to understand. Courts were instructed to defer to agency interpretations, since agencies had technical staff with domain-specific knowledge.
But over time, Chevron Deference became a mechanism for expanding agency power: if an agency wanted to take an action not expressly authorized by law, the agency’s lawyers could search for a seemingly vague law and argue to the court that the agency’s new, extrastatutory powers were implied in the statute’s vague language.
The courts, established to check executive power abuses, found themselves tying their own hands, and the power of the bureaucracy expanded over the next 40 years. Chevron This was because courts were obligated to accept the agency’s interpretation.
Governance of Chevron The decision was finalized this summer when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts in a 6-3 decision, Chevrondeclaring it a violation of the APA. Roper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoRoberts wrote that the law “requires courts to use their own judgment in determining whether an agency acted within its statutory authority,” and further, “courts cannot defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law merely because the statute is ambiguous.”
What happens next? The most likely outcome is a moderate curtailment of abuses of executive power, because government agencies will no longer dare use ambiguity in the statute to justify questionable actions. In some cases, courts may approve agency interpretations. Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said the ruling gives judges more power than they can muster. Ignore Agency interpretations only remove the command to follow agencies when the underlying law is ambiguous and the interpretation is reasonable. Roper Bright, In Adler’s formulation, ChevronJudicial requirements respect Replaced by justice respect.
In the long term Roper BrightThe most significant impact of this may be on Congress. To some extent, the expansion of executive power Chevron These regulations have come at the expense of the legislature. In recent decades, Congress has shifted constitutional responsibilities to the executive branch, sometimes empowering it not only to implement the law but also to make laws through the rulemaking process. After all, an agency’s rules are not just suggestions or guidelines; they carry the force of law just like a law passed by Congress. But unlike a law passed by Congress, voters cannot directly challenge bureaucrats’ rulemaking. Roper Bright It should, or at least could, help restore some democratic accountability to the federal government.
But does Congress really want to take back powers that have been delegated to the executive branch? July panel at the American Enterprise Institute About the Aftermath Loper BrightFormer Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania suggested some in Congress may not want accountability and may vote against them. In government, a desire for power often coincides with a determination to avoid accountability.
