The Wilderness Society’s Post

If you are familiar with the term "Chevron deference," then the recent Supreme Court holding in Loper is likely to change your understanding of how administrative law works in the United States. Even if you are not, this holding may have a large impact on your industry. My colleagues at Norton Rose Fulbright give some helpful insights in their article titled "'Chevron is Overruled' Supreme Court decision upends the era of agency rule" linked here. Take a look.

Democracy, Chevron Deference, and Major Questions AntiDeference - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gepR63Wk In 1984, the Supreme Court in its Chevron opinion invoked democratic values to help justify holding that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of a statute that it administers. In 2022, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Court invoked democratic values to help justify the major questions doctrine (MQD), which requires clear congressional authorization for agency claims of major regulatory power. Democracy, it seems, requires deference and anti-deference for agency statutory interpretations. Or maybe not. This Article submits that the democracy talk of Chevron and West Virginia is implausible, misleading, and may have caused the law to evolve in needlessly confusing and controversial ways. Had the Court skipped its democracy talk in Chevron, the resulting opinion might have focused more cleanly on the best and most persuasive justification for deference in this context, agency expertise. This might have fostered a simpler, clearer approach to deference, free from Chevron’s epicycles and less vulnerable to attack based on abstractions from separation-of-powers principles that threaten Chevron’s imminent demise. Without the help of democracy talk in West Virginia, the Court would have found it more difficult to justify the MQD—and a world without this judicial power grab would be a better one. #Delegation, #NondelegationDoctrine, #majorquestionsdoctrine, #administrativelaw, #supremecourt #Loper #Expertise #AgencyDeference Murphy, Richard W. (2024) "Democracy, Chevron Deference, and Major Questions Anti-Deference," Georgia Law Review: Vol. 58: No. 3, Article 3. Available at: https://lnkd.in/gwTvbi4v

#AmercanHistory365: Today the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After today, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

As a #policy advocate who has long sought to integrate more fact, #evidence, and science into policies, the fall of #Chevron hits hard. But, as an eternal optimist, I keep wondering, there must still be ways to ensure #expert opinion in administrative policymaking, right? ⚖ The answer is yes, and there are three key points to keep in mind in this new post-Chevron environment: 1️⃣ Chevron defense concerns federal statutes, not executive privilege, where we should continue to provide expert opinion. While laws enacted by congress are vast, critical, and far-reaching, they are one part of agencies' mandates. Executive orders still constitute a significant part of agencies' mandates, and agencies still hold authority to interpret their ambiguity with expert opinion. We should continue to provide #expert #opinion for policymakers on how to implement EOs. 2️⃣ Now, advocates can call on Congress to explicitly state that agencies should have the mandate to define the rules under new laws. Beef up those #legislative #advocacy work plans and testify at committee hearings, speak with your congresspersons, and host evidence roundtables. 3️⃣ Continue to advocate throughout the rulemaking and implementation policy for evidence-based policies with agencies. The fall of Chevron does not immediately strip authority from agencies in interpreting ambiguity in rulemaking, but it does open it up to wider scrutiny (which, if we follow the money, we can likely see where litigation will arise). However, agencies interpretations are still considered alongside other interpretations and expertise in court. What do you think? How will your learn how important the fall of Chevron is for your sectors? How will you advocate for fair, efficient, and effective policies in a post-Chevron world? Thanks to the great Institute for Law & AI and Bipartisan Policy Center Charlie B. J.D. Rackey Michael Thorning for wonderful insights, referenced below! https://lnkd.in/et9G-jUF https://lnkd.in/e6p-tA5m #US #policymaking #ai #policy #chevrondeference #advocacy #legislation #advocate

As expected, this morning the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine by 6-2 in Loper-Bright with Jackson recused. Opinion at https://lnkd.in/ejdCuE_h Some quick takes: ·      Background: In the unanimous 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Court held that agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes were entitled to deference by courts. ·      Short take: The decision will be most impactful on federal district and appellate courts, where the doctrine remained viable, rather than at the Court, where it has already been disfavored for some time. As a general matter, this will enhance judicial scrutiny and likelihood of challenges of complex administrative rulemakings, putting greater onus on Congress to be exacting in its statutory language. ·      This will be significant for life science #innovation: from #FDA’s heightened reliance on subregulatory guidances to implement its policies, to NIST’s controversial Bayh-Dole Framework on march-in rights and any agency follow-up, such as by #NIH. ·      Notable quotes from Roberts majority opinion: "Chevron defies the command of the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] that "that the reviewing court--not the agency whose action it reviews--is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret ... statutory provisions. It requires a court to ignore, not follow, the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA." (at 2-3) ·      "Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do..." (at 5) ·      "By overruling Chevron, though, the Court does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology." (at 8) ·      Kagan dissent: "In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law." ·      The decision "is likely to produce large-scale disruption. All that backs today's decision is the majority's belief that Chevron was wrong--that it gave agencies too much power and courts not enough. But shifting views about the worth of regulatory actors and their work do not justify overhauling a cornerstone of administrative law. In that sense, too, today's majority has lost sight of its proper role." #kendallsquarepolicy

To my students, mentees, and friends who are thinking about taking Administrative Law in law school after this Supreme Court term...straightforward advice: don't bother. Today, in LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, the Court eviscerated 40 years of legal precedent (seeing a trend?!) and the authority of federal agencies to provide expertise in critical issues - from the environment to public health to pretty much every facet of American life and the American economy. It's impossible to overstate the dangerous consequences of this decision.  So much for the originalists' penchant for judicial restraint and respecting congressional intent. They tolerate (and indeed, now demand) an activist judiciary when it suits their political agenda. Statements by Representatives Raskin and Khanna below. https://lnkd.in/eSE6G6kw https://lnkd.in/e_GxiQ3h

In an 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upended a 40-year administrative law precedent that gave agencies across the federal government leeway to interpret ambiguous laws through rulemaking...Known as Chevron deference, the now-overturned legal doctrine instructed judges to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous...Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies — effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life... #chevron #administrativelaw ##ruleoflaw #rules #standards #uniformcommerce #uncertainty #predictability #constitution #specialexpertise #separationofpowers #costbenefit #supplychain

The Major Questions Doctrine in Texas Some states have already begun to adopt the major questions doctrine under state law on the federal model. As part of an ongoing series for the Brennan Center's State Court Report, I evaluate one of the first state Supreme Court cases to entertain the MQD after W VA: Texas. I evaluate Texas law and institutional structure to determine if the MQD makes sense in light of differences between it and the federal government. I conclude that there are significant differences between Texas and the federal government that call into question the adoption of the MQD in TX. https://lnkd.in/gHnRwEpZ

https://lnkd.in/eCKbg9w5 SCOTUS has overturned the Chevron Doctrine, which has been a pivotal principle guiding judicial review of administrative agency interpretations of statutes. This marks a significant shift in administrative law in the US, limiting the deference traditionally afforded to agencies. With this decision, one may expect increased judicial scrutiny of agency actions, requiring more explicit congressional authorization for agency regulations. This will impact the way regulatory bodies, legal practitioners, and industries must navigate administrative law in the United States with this heightened judicial oversight. #AdministrativeLaw #Regulations

📢 Breaking News! The U.S. Supreme Court has issued landmark rulings that significantly limit federal agency powers. In three pivotal cases, the Court’s conservative majority struck down key aspects of administrative authority, including the Chevron deference doctrine, SEC tribunal powers, and time limits for challenging regulations. These decisions mark a major shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, with far-reaching implications for regulatory practices and enforcement. Stay informed on these crucial developments and their impact! 📜⚖️ Read more: https://lnkd.in/epGq2e_p SCOTUSblog Supreme Court of the U.S. U.S. Department of Justice US Government Accountability Office National Governors Association American Bar Association #SupremeCourt #ExecutivePower #LegalNews #RegulatoryChange #ChevronDeference #AdministrativeLaw #FederalAgencies #Law #Justice #USPolitics #Government #Judiciary #LegalUpdate #CourtRulings