The Chevron Doctrine, created by a Supreme Court ruling in 1984, gave federal agencies the power to interpret ambiguous laws related to their work. For decades, it shaped the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, recent changes by the Court have weakened the power of federal agencies, significantly shifting how laws are interpreted.
Understanding Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
In 1977, the Clean Air Act was amended to include a provision that required applicants to satisfy the bill’s criteria before building or operating a “major stationary source” of air pollution. In 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted its own interpretation of “major stationary source”, exempting certain equipment from the bill’s provisions. The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) challenged the EPA’s interpretation of the law, arguing the exception would conflict with Congressional intent to maximize environmental regulation. Lower courts sided with the NRDC, stating that the EPA’s interpretation was inconsistent with the original law.
Chevron, a major oil company affected by the regulations, appealed to the Supreme Court. When the battle reached the Supreme Court in 1984, the Court found that Congress did not have a specific intent defining “stationary source,” enabling the EPA to continue interpreting the law using its own definition of “stationary source.” By ruling in favor of Chevron, the Court established a precedent that enabled executive agencies to interpret ambiguous policy language, as long as those interpretations were within the confines of the Chevron case’s Two-Step Test and the Major Questions Doctrine.
The Two-Step Test and Major Questions Doctrine
The original interpretation of the Chevron case decision focused on a two-step process for determining whether an agency’s interpretation abided by the Chevron Doctrine.
- Has Congress directly addressed the issue? → If yes, follow Congressional intent; if no, move to step two.
- Is the agency’s interpretation reasonable? → If yes, the Court defers to the agency.
While this framework remained for many decades after the decision, the Chevron precedent was modified by the 2022 Supreme Court case West Virginia v. EPA, which struck down a 2015 EPA rule that aimed to bolster clean energy. In their decision, the Court referred to a legal idea termed the Major Questions Doctrine, asserting that agencies do not have the authority to act without “clear congressional authorization” on issues of major “economic and political significance.”
Under the original Chevron ruling, courts would side with a federal agency’s interpretation of the law unless the court itself could point to clear Congressional disapproval of the agency’s action. This new use of the Major Questions Doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA shifted the burden from the courts to the agency in justifying interpretive actions not directly authorized by Congress.
The Chevron Doctrine in Practice
The Chevron Doctrine has influenced how Congress makes decisions about the intent of laws and the extent agencies need to realize their intent. This leaves some interpretive power to executive agencies, as they determine specific rules and regulations that carry out the larger legislative vision. From the Clean Water Act to the Endangered Species Act to pesticide regulation, the Doctrine has been instrumental in a multitude of regulations in determining where interpretative freedom can occur. In the Clean Air Act, the Doctrine authorized the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards and to regulate emissions of air pollutants, allowing the EPA to implement air safety regulations, such as the one upheld in the original Chevron v. NRDC case.
In other contexts, such as in Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, courts have tested the Doctrine’s application to other redefinitions. In Sessions, the federal Board of Immigration Appeals deported a lawful permanent resident under a provision that allows for the removal of people convicted of child abuse. The agency determined that the definition of child abuse applies to driving under the influence with a child not wearing a seatbelt. Even though most felt that child abuse constituted a more directly hateful crime, the court allowed the redefinition, highlighting the Chevron Doctrine’s vulnerability to inconsistent definitions. Professor Michael W. McConnel of Stanford Law School underscores that interpretive power can “easily shift from administration to administration,” potentially allowing agencies to mold Congressional policies as they see fit.
The End of the Chevron Doctrine: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
In the 2023 case Loper v. Raimondo, a group of commercial fishermen sued the National Marine Fisheries Service after the agency created a rule requiring the industry to pay for at-sea monitoring programs. When the Supreme Court sided with Loper, it ruled that the Chevron Doctrine contradicted the Administrative Procedure Act and the provision that the courts “decide all relevant questions of law” in reviewing decisions made by executive agencies. This effectively rescinded the Chevron Doctrine, but left previous court decisions that cited the Chevron Doctrine untouched until legal challenge.
Arguments in Favor of the Chevron Doctrine
Agency expertise is central to well-informed and effective regulation. Federal agencies employ experienced professionals well-equipped to dive into the specifics of regulation on an informed basis. Giving them the final say over regulations ensures that the government is making informed decisions about regulation. Overturning this ruling also risks undermining existing systems, including the country’s healthcare system, as it may destabilize programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Flexibility under the Chevron Doctrine allows agencies to adapt to constantly evolving scientific landscapes. Congress can take a while to pass sweeping regulations, but agencies may be able to keep up with the “changing conditions and new scientific understanding.”
Without the Chevron Doctrine, judges have the final say on complex and technical questions of statutory interpretation in fields in which they lack expertise. Consequently, policy choices may not be made by agencies with specific expertise and knowledge of stakeholders’ needs but by judges without expertise and public accountability.
Downsides of the Chevron Doctrine
As it delegates power to the executive branch, the Chevron Doctrine may be unconstitutional. Though the power of legal interpretation belongs to the judicial branch, the Chevron Doctrine pushes that technical interpretation into the purview of executive agencies. Under Chevron, the judicial branch would have to side with the agency’s regulation over the challenger, unless it violated the original test, the Major Questions Doctrine, or the constitution.
By giving agencies interpretive power, the Chevron Doctrine may push them beyond the initial intent of the legislation. Challenging potentially harmful agency regulation becomes incredibly difficult as lower courts can “brush off serious challenges to agency decisions” by citing the Chevron Doctrine.
Overturning the Doctrine gives people and organizations more agency to challenge regulations and definitions put in place by federal agencies. In one case handling security decisions, national security legislation had previously been out of reach due to “executive agencies’ ‘black box’ policymaking” with the Doctrine. Without the Doctrine, people are more empowered to challenge these definitions, as they can impact sentencing and immigration cases for individuals.
Future Implications for Regulation
In light of the Chevron Doctrine’s modification and the Loper case, several areas of government and policy fields face shifts in regulation.
While the Chevron Doctrine was in place, Congress often left language in a bill intentionally vague to allow for experts in executive agencies to implement the intent of the law. Under Loper, this is no longer the case, and Congress must now specifically determine the extent of agencies’ interpretive power. If the legislation is too broad, judges may rule against it; if it’s too narrow, agencies may not be able to act.
Considering impacts to the executive branch, the end of the Chevron Doctrine represents a loss of power for the executive. According to Daniel Farber, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, “Presidents are going to have less room … to change the playbook.” Forcing Congress to be legislatively explicit also forces executive agencies to defer to explicit legislative consent to act. Executive agencies will no longer have the final say in editing legal specifics.
For governmental organizations, rescinding the Chevron Doctrine allows judges to have the final approval over the existence of entire agencies.
As for local public health, the Loper ruling allows legal challenges to the decisions of federal health agencies in areas such as “drug approval, tobacco control, food safety standards, and environmental regulations.” Large companies can challenge regulatory decisions not explicated by Congress that were implemented by federal agencies. The loss of the Chevron Doctrine may also hinder the ability of agencies to respond rapidly to crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic when faced with legal challenges.
Similarly, despite their persuasiveness, legal interpretations by environmental and energy experts are no longer binding. Cases like Sackett v. EPA are likely to come down the pipeline; in 2023 the Sackett case rejected the EPA’s definition of “waters of the United States.” In their ruling, the Supreme Court relied on a dictionary definition over the EPA’s definition, which included “scientific analyses of the hydrologic links between non-navigable and navigable bodies of water.” The constrictive definition limited the agency’s ability to regulate non-perennial streams and wetlands, leaving a regulatory gap.
Without the Chevron Doctrine as a strong defense for executive agencies’ decisions, independent corporations can challenge agency decisions. Experts disagree on how this will impact the business landscape. Some believe overturning the Chevron Doctrine increases stability with Congressional specificity, but others argue judges will create an inconsistent landscape of regulation.
Regardless of the outcome, the overturn marks a monumental shift in regulatory interpretation that changes the powers of the federal government, agencies, and corporations.