Chevron deference’s overturning and how it might shape the future of the U.S legal system
By: Mirabel Ge
On June 28, the American Supreme Court struck its gavel, officially overturning Chevron deference—an anti-climactic collapse to a decades-old legal battle. The court’s 6-3 conservative ruling eliminated the doctrine that gave federal agencies the freedom to interpret unclear laws. It was a seemingly mundane and quiet case, but the Supreme Court’s decision constitutes a powerful and worrisome precedent for the future of America’s administrative system.
The Chevron deference allowed agencies and experts to reasonably interpret laws that were ambiguous as long as those interpretations were within the parameters of previous statutes, essentially allowing for the reinterpretation and definition of unclear legislation. Named after the landmark case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984, this deference played a crucial role in balancing legislative powers. At the time, the growing intricacies of American government systems made it impossible for Congress to micromanage every administrative decision made. So, they entrusted the power of clarification to federal agencies to carry out their benevolent decisions. So in 1984, the Supreme Court settled on a simple 2-part “test” to solve a dispute about a statute. First, the judges examine the wording of the statute to see if Congress’s intent is clear. If it is, then the agency must adhere to the letter of the law. However, if the statutory language is unclear, meaning there can be two or more interpretations derived from it, the court must defer the carrying-out of a law up to the agency’s choice. This rested upon the principle that expert agencies were better informed than judges to make decisions on Congress’s open ended laws. Overturning Chevron gave courts the power to overrule administrative decisions.
The judicial system was built to interpret the law. Their role was a suiting counterbalance to Congress’s certain laws that lacked clarity. June 28 marked the demise of Chevron and with it a decision that irreversibly tipped the balance. The decision effectively allowed the judicial branch to assume authority over policy dictation—a power they were never meant to inherit under the original government structure. Chief Justice John Roberts, representing the majority opinion, wrote that “Chevron does not prevent judges from making policy. It prevents them from judging.” Conversely, Justice Elena Kagan expressed her disapproval at the decision: “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.”
Luckily, there have not yet been any cases that have been influenced by overturning Chevron. The future of the U.S legal system is uncertain, though. The FDA, CMS (Centers for Medicare/Medicaid), U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are among the agencies that will likely be affected because of the decision. Many lower courts have also relied on deferring policies to agencies when handling complex statutes like the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act. Courts are unfit to make decisions that require particular expertise. Moreover, the American legal system is notorious for its lurching pace and slow trials. The justices’ decision is likely to overwhelm the pre-existing traffic jam that is the court system. For much of the general public, Overturning Chevron looks like a purposeful divesting of power from the experts. In turn, that same power is conveniently placed into the hands of an already scrutinized and controversial judicial system.
The lack of noteworthy cases where Chevron was applied does not guarantee there will not be one in the future. Statutes are not always in place for day-to-day interactions; they should exist to uphold and protect democracy and justice when necessary. In the past two years, the Supreme Court has made a series of pivotal and controversial rulings that glaringly point to the divide in U.S politics. A survey showed that 7 in 10 Americans think the high court’s justices rule based upon ideology. It has become increasingly apparent that the justices’ ideologies mirror their political leanings: a contradiction to the principle of the judiciary—that when it comes down to decision-making, judges represent the paradigm for an apolitical and uninfluenced figure. In a time aflame with political tension, skepticism, and distrust, the elimination of Chevron only fans the fire.
Leave a Reply