DEPARTMENTS
PUBLIC POLICY
MARK AMES is AIHA’s chief advocacy officer. This article originally appeared, in slightly different form, on the
SynergistNOW blog on Aug. 29, 2024.
Send feedback to The Synergist.
Send feedback to The Synergist.
The End of Chevron Deference
BY MARK AMES
If you aren’t familiar with Chevron deference, you’re not alone. Stemming from the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., Chevron deference was a somewhat obscure practice in which federal courts generally deferred to government agencies, relying on their expertise to interpret vaguely worded laws. However, this changed in June when the Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (PDF) that overturned Chevron deference, arguing that federal “[c]ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority…. But courts need not…defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”
Writing in dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that “[a]gencies are staffed with ‘experts in the field’ who can bring their training and knowledge to bear on open statutory questions.” But with this decision, Kagan wrote, the Court gave itself “exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.”
A POWER SHIFT
Just like that, power has shifted power away from agencies. Where power shifted to is less clear. It’s almost certain the federal courts have gained power, but it’s also possible that members of Congress have gained power, too. If Congress enacts clearer, less ambiguous laws, then agencies will have less to interpret. Along these same lines, the White House also gained power, since the White House plays a key role in legislative negotiations through the president’s veto power.
Perhaps most interesting is the likelihood that businesses and nonprofits, such as AIHA, have also gained power as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision. The argument is that members of Congress, their staffs, and White House staff don’t have the expertise necessary to write detailed legislation on highly technical issues, so where do they turn? The answer is the people who actually work in a particular field—people such as AIHA members.
We are now in the post-Chevron deference era, which will impact current and future OEHS legislation and regulations in ways we are only beginning to understand.
A NEW ERA
We are now in the post-Chevron deference era, which will impact current and future OEHS legislation and regulations in ways we are only beginning to understand. In August, AIHA hosted a free public webinar in which a panel of experts helped us understand what to expect in the weeks to come. While many questions have yet to be answered, what is clear is that in the courts, the halls of Congress, and the White House, AIHA members have risen in prominence thanks to their recognized expertise, which the three branches of government are likely to increasingly rely on as expert witnesses, knowledgeable constituents, and trusted stakeholders.
Now is a great time to introduce yourself to your government officials and build influential relationships with them by visiting the AIHA Grassroots Advocacy Center, where you can find out who your government officials are and request a meeting with them. AIHA’s government relations team is happy to help. Email me if you’re interested in meeting (online or in person) with your government officials, would like to receive best practices for meeting with policymakers, or if you’d just like to chat about government relations.
RESOURCES
Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (June 1984).
Supreme Court of the United States: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (PDF, August 2024).