The Overturning of Chevron: What it Means for Our Work

When the Supreme Court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), it did away with the precedent that regulatory agencies have deference regarding statutory interpretation. In other words, Chevron held that courts should defer to federal agencies’ expertise in interpreting ambiguous statues. Not only does this spare the courts from devoting time to ruling on ambiguities, but it also gives the responsibility of interpretation to federal agencies that are much better suited to the task.  

The initial Chevron ruling came about after the Reagan administration’s EPA changed its interpretation of the Clean Air Act, paving the way for more polluters to meet air pollution standards. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) unanimously voted that interpretations of ambiguous language should come from the agencies delegated to carry out congressional policy, given their subject-matter expertise and relative political accountability. In 40 years, Chevron has been the lynchpin behind 18,000 federal court and 70 SCOTUS cases.  

Without the Chevron deference, power has been fundamentally shifted away from federal agencies and toward the courts. Policy questions will now fall under the purview of unelected judges who may prioritize their own ideological preferences over expert knowledge.

There may be efforts to reopen settled decisions for interpretations, establishing new ones that differ from those previously held by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA. Additionally, it will also complicate the lawmaking process since any ambiguities may become more problematic than they have in the past. Writing legislation is already a lengthy process, and now it will be much more so as great detail will be needed to avoid anything that might be interpreted in unintended ways.  

For more about how the recent Chevron ruling will impact agriculture, we recommend you check out this piece from Food Tank.