The Supreme Court on Friday killed off a judicial doctrine that has protected many federal regulations from legal challenges for decades — delivering a major victory for conservatives and business groups seeking to curb the power of the executive branch.
The 6-3 decision divided the court along ideological lines. Its fallout will make it harder for President Joe Biden or any future president to act on a vast array of policy areas, from wiping out student debt and expanding protections for pregnant workers to curbing climate pollution and regulating artificial intelligence.
Known as Chevron deference, the Reagan-era doctrine required judges to defer to agencies’ “reasonable” interpretations of “ambiguous” federal laws. Now, judges will be freer to impose their own readings of the law — giving them broad leeway to upend regulations on health care, the environment, financial regulations, technology and more.
This means that anyone who doesn’t like a particular rule or regulation can pick a venue with a friendly judge, challenge it in court, and likely get the outcome they want. Even if judge shopping wasn’t a major problem right now, this would still be a bad idea. The reason Chevron told judges to defer to agencies in matters where the interpretation is ambiguous is because those agencies have the experience and and expertise to understand the issues involved far better than a judge who has to try to master the subject from inside the courtroom.
This is all the more crazy in light of the recent racial gerrymandering decision, where Alito not only ignored the deference that appeals courts are supposed to show to trial courts (where the case is actually experienced and not just summed up in a brief) but then says that the judicial branch must defer to the legislators when they claim that they are being fair. So judges can just override the executive branch in subjects that they likely do not understand, but they can’t actually contradict the legislature over something like whether a policy is violating someone’s constitutional rights, despite that being one of their core functions for the past couple of centuries.
The reason Chevron told judges to defer to agencies in matters where the interpretation is ambiguous is because those agencies have the experience and and expertise to understand the issues involved far better than a judge who has to try to master the subject from inside the courtroom.
Chevron didn’t only apply in areas of niche expertise it also applied to the whole statute. Meaning questions on what words like “other” meant or questions like what a “reasonable measure” was couldn’t be heard by judges even though they normally decide those issues. The agencies like the DEA under Chevron could interpret criminal statutes to have new meaning without any legislative action.
Perhaps it’s culling was a bit much but it was far to broad.
