The 1984 case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) established the Chevron deference, giving wiggle room for federal agencies to interpret Congress' intent for vague laws. As of June 28, 2024, the ruling of the Chevron deference was overturned, allowing courts to second-guess agency actions and their interpretation of laws.
Origin of the Chevron Deference
The Clean Air Act (CAA), adopted to regulate air pollution at a national level, required that states establish a permit program that regulates sources of air pollution. “Source” was originally defined by the Carter administration as any device in a manufacturing setting that produced pollution.
After Ronald Reagan's election in 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) redefined “source” as the manufacturing plant entirely. Following this, the NRDC challenged Ronald Reagan's administration's newfound definition and won in the federal court which was soon after again appealed by Chevron. The court ruled in favor of Chevron stating that in the case of ambiguity, deference should be given to administrative agencies' interpretations of the law and that in this case, Chevron was entitled to deference.
The case gets shut down
Recently, the case was brought up again by lawmakers, and in a 6-3 decision, Chevron was overturned. This decision is critical in weakening the powers of federal agencies to interpret laws as they see fit. However, many critics are questioning whether or not courts are better suited to determine the meaning of ambiguities in federal law, especially when the majority of those ambiguities require expert interpretation.
Potentially dangerous
The overturning of the Chevron deference is a huge win for conservatives and corporations who for decades had to adhere to agencies' interpretations of law for workplaces, financial markets and environmental industries. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) noted that the overturning of Chevron “will harm all Americans and profoundly impact our nation’s environmental safeguards and public health protections.” This has led to an era of uncertainty in a world where climate change is ever present, healthcare and public health are threatened, and workers' rights are at an all-time low.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), climate change and air pollution are some of the biggest threats to global health and are estimated to cause 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050. The overturning of Chevron has the potential to exacerbate the violation of workers' rights in the future by giving legislators the freedom to enforce laws that protect and benefit megacorporations over everything else.
The United States already ranks at the bottom of the countries listed in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in terms of worker protection. In 2022, legislators expressed interest in adopting legislation that would set back workplace protections, proposing the Workplace Flexibility and Choice Act in the House. The act may make it increasingly difficult for employees to hold their employers legally accountable for workplace violations such as discrimination. Should we allow courts more power to interpret and enforce legislation, we would forfeit the power workers' organizations, educational organizations and environmental organizations hold when it comes to adopting fair legislation.
Acknowledgment: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author.
I think the flip-side to the impact of this ruling is that unelected bureaucrats within federal agencies will no longer have the power to uphold their administrative leverage over elected officials. Presidential administrations have lost the ability to compete with these agencies as they are permanent and have until now been afforded the ability to interpret law as they see fit. Seeing as they are not elected officials, it seems they have an outsized influence in democracy.