WASHINGTON — Federal rules that affect nearly every aspect of daily life, from the food we eat to the cars we drive to the air we breathe, could be in jeopardy after a sweeping Supreme Court ruling on Friday.
The court rejected a 40-year-old legal doctrine popularly known as Chevroneffectively reducing the power of executive agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and shifting it to the courts.
The doctrine, named after a 1984 case involving the energy giant, has been the basis for enforcing thousands of federal regulations, but has long a target of conservatives and business groupswho argue that it gives too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.
Below are some conclusions from the court’s ruling and its implications.
The Chevron decision essentially gave federal agencies the authority to issue rules to implement laws that were not clear. And that deference to executive power has allowed presidential administrations of both parties to use regulations to create policy, especially during times of deep partisan divisions in Washington.
Friday’s Supreme Court ruling means it could become more difficult for the federal government to defend these rules in federal court.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that Chevron has given too much power to experts who work for the government. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its legal authority,” Roberts said wrote.
The ruling does not overturn previous cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, he added.
Cara Horowitz, 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 “takes more tools out of the toolbox of federal regulators.”
“By definition, statutes typically do not clearly define how agencies should address new and emerging threats, such as climate change, which were not well understood when these decades-old statutes were written,” she said.
Environmental and public health activists say the decision could set back efforts to reduce air and water pollution, limit toxic chemicals or even tackle emerging public health threats like COVID-19.
Horowitz called the ruling “yet another blow to the EPA’s ability to address emerging problems like climate change.”
And Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, said: “It undermines vital protections for the American people at the behest of powerful polluters.”
Carrie Severino, a lawyer and conservative activist, called the decision “a major victory for the rule of law.”
“Good riddance to Chevron, which put a two-ton legal thumb on the scale of government bureaucrats against the little guy,” she said.
If regulators “want to win in the future, they need to be more careful” and resist the urge to “push their own agenda,” Severino said.
The ruling follows a Supreme Court ruling Thursday blocking enforcement of EPAs “good neighbor” ruleintended to limit emissions from power plant smokestacks and other industrial sources, which burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said the ruling “restores the proper balance” in the three branches of government.
“Congress will now be under extreme pressure to be more specific in writing legislation so that the plain text of a bill can be clearly interpreted by the courts. & federal agencies when legislation becomes law,” Grassley posted on the social media site X.
But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said the court’s conservative majority “has just blatantly eroded long-standing precedent in a move that will embolden judicial activism and undermine important legislation.”
New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision “comes at the expense of everyday Americans who rely on federal agencies to look out for their health and safety, not the profits of giant corporations. ”
Craig Segall, vice president of the environmental group Evergreen Action, said the ruling “opened the door” for large companies to challenge a host of federal rules.
“The dismantling of the Chevron doctrine gives any Trump-appointed judge the authority to override the agency’s experts’ interpretation of the law and substitute their ideological stance for the considered determination of government officials,” Segall said.
Jeff Holmstead, an attorney and former EPA department head under President George W. Bush, said it is now up to federal agencies to “decide what Congress actually wants them to do.”
“The days of federal agencies filling in legislative gaps are rightfully over,” said Senate Minority Leader R-Ky.
Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the ruling “creates a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every American.” He and other Democrats vowed to push for legislation to restore the Chevron doctrine, an effort that holds great promise in a deeply divided Congress.
In the short term, the decision will likely limit government actions on auto safety, leaving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) questioning itself over new regulations, said Michael Brooks, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, a watchdog organization.
“It will be more difficult for NHTSA to issue regulations that will ultimately require better safety,” Brooks said.
But the Specialty Equipment Market Association, which represents companies that make specialty vehicle parts, said the decision will free up small businesses hurt by the federal regulatory overreach.
Earlier this year, NHTSA proposed a requirement that automatic emergency braking be standard on all new U.S. passenger cars in five years, calling it the most important safety rule of the past two decades.
Automakers have already asked the agency to reconsider the rules, saying the performance standards are nearly impossible to meet with current technology.
___
Associated Press writers Tom Krisher in Detroit and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this story.