WASHINGTON, D.C. – On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned (6-3 vote) the Chevron deference (Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council) that favored agencies’ rulemaking interpretations.
“The Chevron deference had been around for decades,” said Jeffrey S. Baird, JD, Brown & Fortunato, Amarillo, Tex. “It required federal courts to defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, the courts (on their own) will need to interpret ambiguous statutory provisions.”
As reported on SCOTUSblog and elsewhere, Justice Elena Kagan dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that the ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”
“Although the Chevron decision – which upheld the Reagan-era Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act that eased regulation of emissions – was generally hailed by conservatives at the time,” writes Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog, “the ruling eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means.”
Frequent Third Thursday contributor Carol A. Sigmond, JD, partner at Greenspoon Marder LLP, New York, N.Y. referred to the Chevron decision as “full employment for lawyers because there’s going to be lots more litigation and a lot more headaches.”
Instead of industry experts giving the last word, it’s more likely that judges will have the last word. “Is that good or bad?” asks Sigmond. “Presumably the judge should go with the best advice, but who knows? It’s going to be interesting.”
As for procedures at OSHA, Sigmond is confident it’s going to change rule-making. “It is going to create new avenues of objection to various rulemaking proceedings,” Sigmond predicts. “There will be more litigation over these rules, and I think it will force agencies to do a better job of explaining the rules and making them understandable and practical.
“I think they’re going to be in court saying Congress didn’t intend for us to jump through seven hoops,” Sigmond continues. “It’s going to be a very interesting battle. The courts are going to be left to try to wrestle with the question; What did Congress intend? Especially because congress has come to rely on the Chevron doctrine and not spell out much. It’s going to be messy.”
