WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal laws that affect virtually every aspect of daily life — from the food we eat to the cars we drive to the air we breathe — could be in jeopardy following a sweeping Supreme Court ruling Friday.
The court overturned a 40-year-old legal doctrine known colloquially as the Chevron Doctrine, effectively curtailing the power of executive agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and transferring it to the courts.
The doctrine, named after a 1984 case involving the energy giant, forms the basis for upholding thousands of federal regulations. But it has long been targeted by conservatives and business groups who argue that it gives too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.
Here are some takeaways from the court ruling and its implications.
One less instrument for governing
The Chevron decision essentially gave federal agencies the power to issue regulations to implement ambiguous laws. And this deference to the executive branch has allowed presidents of both parties to make policy through legislation, especially at a time of deep partisan divisions in Washington.
Friday’s Supreme Court ruling means it could be more tough for the federal government to defend these regulations in federal court.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said Chevron gave too much power to experts working for the government. “Courts must use their independent judgment to decide whether an agency acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote.
The ruling does not call into question previous cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, he added.
Cara Horowitz, a professor of environmental law and executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the UCLA School of Law, said the decision “further removes tools from federal regulators.”
“By definition, laws typically do not clearly specify how agencies should address new and emerging threats, such as climate change, that were not well understood when these decades-old laws were drafted,” she said.
Potential impacts on the environment and public health
The decision could undermine efforts to reduce air and water pollution, restrict toxic chemicals or even combat recent public health threats such as COVID-19, environmental and health activists said.
Horowitz called the ruling “another blow to EPA’s ability to address new problems like climate change.”
And Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said: “At the behest of powerful polluters, this will undermine vital protections for the American people.”
Carrie Severino, a lawyer and conservative activist, called the decision a “major victory for the rule of law.”
“Goodbye never again is the Chevron subordination that has put two tons of legal pressure on government bureaucrats against the little guy,” she said.
If regulators “want to be successful in the future, they will need to be more careful” and resist the temptation to “push their own interests,” Severino said.
The ruling follows a Supreme Court decision Thursday blocking enforcement of the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule, which aims to limit smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.
Bigger role for Congress?
Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said the ruling restores “the appropriate balance” between the three branches of government.
“Congress is now under tremendous pressure to be more precise in drafting legislation so that the plain language of a bill can be clearly interpreted by the courts and federal agencies when the law becomes law,” Grassley posted on the social media site X.
But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, said the court’s conservative majority “has just shamelessly undermined longstanding precedent in a move that will encourage judicial activism and undermine important regulations.”
New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision “comes at the expense of ordinary Americans who rely on federal agencies for their health and safety, not the profits of giant corporations.”
What’s next?
Craig Segall, vice president of the environmental group Evergreen Action, said the ruling “opened the door” for immense companies to challenge a range of federal laws.
“Eliminating the Chevron Doctrine gives any judge appointed by Trump the authority to override the legal interpretation of the agency’s experts and replace the informed decision of officials with their ideological viewpoint,” Segall said.
Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer and former EPA department head under President George W. Bush, said it is now up to federal agencies “to decide what Congress actually wanted them to do.”
“The days of federal agencies filling gaps in legislation are rightly over,” said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the ruling creates “a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for all Americans.” He and other Democrats vowed to push for legislation to restore the Chevron doctrine, a proposal that faces little opposition in the closely divided Congress.
Car safety regulations at risk?
In the low term, the decision will likely result in the government’s efforts to improve car safety being curtailed and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHS) having to reconsider recent regulations, says Michael Brooks, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety.
“It will be more difficult for NHTSA to enforce rules that ultimately lead to greater safety,” Brooks said.
However, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, which represents manufacturers of specialty vehicle parts, said the decision would provide relief to petite companies that have suffered from excessive federal regulation.
Earlier this year, the NHTSA proposed that automatic emergency braking be standard equipment on all recent U.S. passenger cars within five years, calling it the most significant safety regulation in two decades.
Car manufacturers have already asked the authority to reconsider the regulations, as the performance standards are tough to meet with current technology.
___
Associated Press writers Tom Krisher in Detroit and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this article.
