South SFV Today

On Friday, June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The decision overturns 40 years of precedent that has been cited in dozens of Supreme Court cases and thousands of lower court rulings. At issue is the Administrative Procedure Act and the independence of government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Here Stanford Law Professor Deborah Sivas, an environmental law expert, discusses the case and its implications.

Can you first briefly explain the landmark Court ruling Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that was overturned today?

"The Chevron case, decided in 1984, applied a two-step approach for interpreting federal statutes implemented by administrative agencies. Chevron directed federal courts, in reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, to determine, first, whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise statutory question at issue. If so, the intent of Congress is clear and courts should give effect to that intent. If, however, the statute is silent or ambiguous, Chevron directed courts to defer to the agency’s reading of the statutory provision as long as that interpretation was a permissible construction of the language. The doctrine established by Chevron therefore substantially deferred to agencies’ interpretations of the laws they administer."

Chevron has been in place for 40 years and has been cited thousands of times by both the Supreme Court and lower courts, right? What does today’s decision mean for established law?

"Yes, probably tens of thousands of lower court cases over the last four decades have relied on Chevron in some fashion. The Court’s opinion today makes clear that the settled judgments in those cases are not affected – that is, the Loper Bright Enterprises ruling will not be grounds for revisiting those cases. But going forward it does portend a sea change for any new cases that raise questions of statutory interpretation."

How did the majority support this decision? What was their argument?

"The decision itself is premised on what the majority believes is a plain text reading of the Administrative Procedure Act which governs judicial challenges to agency actions. The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts essentially says that Chevron was wrongly decided in 1984 'by a bare quorum of six Justices' because it conflicts with APA’s directive that courts (not agencies) should decide 'all relevant questions of law.' The majority opinion justifies today’s reversal in part through a lengthy discussion of many exceptions carved out from Chevron doctrine by recent Court decisions. Justice Roberts argues that while Chevron has remained on books it has become a 'decaying husk' warranting overturning."

Has Chevron been suffering a slow death?

"Today’s decision is really culmination efforts reducing government roles even as modern society problems become acute complex more than bit scary thinking federal judges ideological none specialized training beyond JD empowered strike down rules actions they don’t like knowing Congress incapable effective check judicial power."

How will this decision impact work agencies like EPA? Will it empower courts?

"We will see how agencies adjust – aware some time Chervon hanging thread – how lower courts react likely far-reaching impacts EPA FDA similar regulatory statutes highly technical applying contemporary problems climate change requires expert judgment deference given expert judgments under Chevron largely past."

Take climate policy: "Congress never enacted climate legislation partisan nature current political system likely address contemporary concerns EPA Clean Air Act enacted 1970 long before climate change radar Clean Act silent greenhouse gas emissions climate policy EPA interpreted various provisions statue address issues Courts no longer defer setting stage judiciary strike down regulations same true across all federal regulatory agencies."

The Court left door open Skidmore deference: "old New Deal-era case counseled respect where persuasive whether persuasive particular judge subjective standard suspect courts want uphold regulation rely Skidmore disagree won’t."

You have been leading environmental lawyer since early days after Chevron decision importance today’s decision work you do?

"It will likely significant impact work honestly both directions regulatory action aims protect public environment harm difficult reason conservative legal scholars potential targets pushed literally decades jettison On other hand number federal agencies like US Forest Service Bureau Land Management manage most lands captured entities regulate timber companies mining interests seek deference pro-development pro-extraction rules decisions community partners happy see gone balance own view adverse impact ability protect public kinds harm environmental economic social etc."

Are there any legal avenues around this decision?

"Likely put pressure justify interpretations make less willing color outside lines older statutes address modern problems precisely effect conservative commentators intended curious play out lower increase workload uncertainty recent analogs suggest wholesale jettison settled precedent abortion gun rights chaos uncertainty created prompted new litigation moving Rahimi start back-peddle expansive Bruen many Second Amendment challenges bouncing hopes overturning measures same trajectory may play out context exercise independent judgment interpreting applied contemporary problems Congress expressly addressed think last issue before Supreme Court."

Is there anything else you’d like add about this decision impact environmental issues going forward?

"The slow fall today’s opinion says not relied since 2016 practitioner know Department Justice stopped using Trump accompanied rise major questions doctrine official blessing West Virginia striking down Clean Power Plan provides broad economic significance authorized clear statement virtually new regulation pollution financial institutions satisfy criterion rulemakings risk regulated parties raising challenges case after arrival simultaneous demise go hand-in-hand arrogate enormous power decide policy questions rest us went school conservative legal scholars railed creep judicial policymaking now embrace it."

Deborah A. Sivas is Luke W. Cole Professor Environmental Law Stanford Law School leading litigator founding director highly regarded Environmental Law Clinic students provide counsel dozens national regional grassroots nonprofit organizations variety issues successes challenging Bush administration gas mileage standards SUVs light trucks holding accountable regulating discharge invasive species ship ballast water research focused interaction science arena coastal/marine policy ability hold policymakers accountable also director Stanford Law School Environmental Natural Resources Program senior fellow Stanford Woods Institute Environment affiliated researcher Center Ocean Solutions faculty advisor Emmett Interdisciplinary Program Environment Resources professor Doerr School Sustainability.

News insights events delivered inbox weekday morning Stories keep informed inspired one world leading research teaching institutions.

©Copyright Stanford University Stanford California 94305