Sometime in the next several weeks the U.S. Supreme Court may hand down a ruling that many legal scholars are saying could have profound federal regulatory implications.
Decided by the higher court in 1984, what is referenced as the Chevron Deference has long been criticized by various business groups as giving too much power to federal agencies.
In the original ruling, Chevron U.S.A. v National Resources Defense Council, the court agreed with the NRDC after that group said the Environmental Protection Agency was being too lax in its interpretation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act, especially as it applied to big companies such as Chevron.
In response, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of empowering agencies with a certain amount of latitude in the area of enforcement activity. To that end, the Court greatly empowered those agencies in cases where the wording of a statute is not precisely clear.
The actions of the agency in question, said the Court, should be deferred to, thus creating what has popularly come to be known as the Chevron Deference.
Court watchers have recently said that it is almost certain the Chevron Deference is on its way out. Several months ago, the New York Times remarked that the “foundational doctrine of administrative law known as the Chevron Deference appeared to be in peril.”
Earlier this month, the Washington Examiner remarked that a new Chevron Deference ruling “could reshape the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary,” while also giving “small litigants due process leverage.”
The City Journal has suggested that modifying the Chevron Deference may actually “enhance regulatory certainty.”
As it now stands, said the publication, an agency’s interpretation of a statute can shift from one presidential administration to the next. “Requiring Congress to be more explicit and shifting statutory interpretations from agencies back to the courts will alleviate that uncertainty.”
By Garry Boulard
Image Credit: Courtesy of Pixabay
