What is the Chevron Deference
Chevron Deference is the power, given by federal judges, to administer and enforce the laws and policies to the degree of the expertise of the agencies and the experts that work there. The Chevron Deference indirectly affects all of the goods that we consume by checking the power of unethical corporations and protecting us from consuming a product or using a service that would otherwise negatively impact us due to partially defined laws or regulations. This can range anywhere from improperly regulated drugs being released to medical malpractice due to lack of statute.
Due to the sudden overturning of this major case, first established in 1984, expert agencies are no longer allowed to interpret the gray areas of laws in deciding the amount of care businesses must follow in order to sell their products or services. This means that attorneys and judges will have the power to decide the full implications of laws unclear in nature or undefined, rather than the experts in government agencies vital to deciding those laws and policies. This ruling undermines the expertise of these government agencies and can lead to some unintended consequences regarding those consuming the products manufactured from these corporations.
The Case that Overturned the Chevron Deference
The case that had overturned the Chevron Deference had begun with an Alaskan-herring fisherman suing over requirements from the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which had required them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. Issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, fishermen had to pay approximately $710 per day to bring observers on their ships to monitor for overfishing. However, they were reimbursed by the agency for the costs of the observers.
The argument made by the fishermen was that the agency had failed to follow proper rulemaking procedure and that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not authorize the agency to make such requirements. The supreme court sided with the fishermen and decreed that “courts may not refer to an agency interpretation of a law simply because a statute is ambiguous”1. Thus officially marking the overturning of the Chevron Deference.
Unintended Consequences from the Overturning of the Chevron Deference
This decision to overturn the Chevron Deference has led to federal judges inappropriately deciding their own interpretations of laws as well as giving businesses more leeway to practice unethical production of products or services. Even with the Chevron Deference doctrine in place, many agencies were still fighting legal battles over their rules and regulations as well as only prevailing roughly 70% of the time in those battles2. Such that without the Chevron Deference doctrine businesses would have a much larger chance of being left unchecked by policy.
These decisions are much more likely to be accurately decided by scientists in their expertise rather than judges. Especially with the fact that there are so many diverse judges with diverse beliefs which would only help rather than discourage the unethical practices of shady or greedy businesses. This can also cause the weakening or loosening of thousands of rules and regulations on everything from healthcare, to food and drug safety, and even the environment.
How is this Relevant to Us as a Society
The theory behind the Chevron Deference was that the specialists and scientists would be much better educated on the topics the laws had been centered around and therefore a stronger alternative to judges and court systems deciding on topics they weren’t as educated about. However, according to the courts that overturned the Chevron Deference “...agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities.”3
And as a result of the overturning of the Chevron Deference, we now face much larger problems involving safety of food and drugs, healthcare, and even environmental concern. The overturning of the Chevron Deference could also potentially make it much harder for the government to enforce worker safety regulations. This could mean lowering of wages unethically due to a lack of regulation or court systems turning a blind eye due to misinterpretation. Potentially resulting in drugs being produced with a lack of regulation and thus increasing a greater risk to populations using unsafe drugs with untested side effects. As well as decreasing the chances of winning a case against these corporations for these hazardous practices.
So What Can We Do?
The Chevron Deference being overturned is problematic because it allows businesses to do what they want unchecked, even through the use of hazardous or unsafe means. This can be dangerous as we are the most affected by the lack of regulation in the goods and services we consume and use. As single individuals, we cannot do much of anything, but as a society, we should collectively come together to limit the powers of the government and corporations when we will be the most affected by this overruling.
Concluding Thoughts
Without the idea of security in the food we consume and the goods we purchase, how can we remain safe without meticulous regulations backed by experts in the fields of those sciences? Can court systems composed of lower level judges make up for the years of research put into the creation of such regulations?
Now that the decision is put onto lower level courts rather than expert-grounded agencies, this can destabilize the regulations on businesses on ethical and unethical production. This can lead to businesses being able to exploit workers or laws on the discretion of judges who could potentially not be informed enough to make such decisions.
122-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024
2The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Now? (Jeff Turrentine)
322-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024
Resources
“CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC., Petitioner, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, et al., Petitioners, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. William D. RUCKELSHAUS ...” Law.Cornell.Edu, n/a, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/837. Accessed 9 August 2024.
DALY, MATTHEW. “What it means for the Supreme Court to throw out Chevron decision, undercutting federal regulators.” AP News, 28 June 2024, http://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-4ae73d5a79cabadff4da8f7e16669929. Accessed 9 August 2024.
Davenport, Coral. “Here’s What the Court’s Chevron Ruling Could Mean in Everyday Terms.” The New York Times, n/a, http://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/chevron-deference-decision-meaning.html. Accessed 9 August 2024.
Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies.” SCOTUSblog, 28 June 2024, https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/. Accessed 9 August 2024.
Palmer, Brian. “Thanks, Chevron?” NRDC, 5 August 2015, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/thanks-chevron. Accessed 5 August 2024.
“The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Now?” NRDC, June 2024, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference. Accessed 8 August 2024