“This is a very significant reversal of Chevron deference, which has been a cornerstone of administrative law for the past 40 years. Some key points on the implications:
- It basically transfers the power from executive agencies to the courts to interpret ambiguous laws. Courts will now have the primary authority to interpret ambiguities in laws rather than deferring to the agencies’ reasonable interpretations.
- This decision opens the way for potential new legal challenges to many of the agency’s existing regulations and interpretations. Regulations that were previously maintained under Chevron may now be more vulnerable.
- It will likely be more difficult for agencies to issue new regulations or take new regulatory actions because they will have less latitude in interpreting their statutory authority.
- This may lead to less stability and consistency in regulatory policy, as different courts may reach different interpretations of the laws.
- This could slow down the regulatory process, as more issues could end up being brought to court rather than referred to the agency’s expertise.
Some areas that could experience significant impacts:
- Environmental regulations (EPA, Dept of Interior, etc.)
- Health regulations (HHS, CMS)
- Financial regulations (SEC, CFPB)
- Labor regulations (DOL, NLRB)
- Immigration policies
- Telecommunications Regulations (FCC)
Regulations that rely heavily on agencies filling statutory gaps or interpreting broad statutory language are most likely to be affected. Major Obama- and Biden-era regulations on issues such as climate change, health care, and financial reform could be particularly vulnerable to new challenges.
However, the majority opinion indicates that prior court decisions upholding the agency’s actions under Chevron should not necessarily be overturned based on this decision alone. Efforts are therefore being made to limit the disruptive impact, even if dissidents express skepticism about the effectiveness of this measure in practice.
“Overall, this represents a major shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches in matters of administrative law and regulation. The full practical implications of this development will likely take years to realize through new litigation and regulatory processes. »
