The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old legal precedent that forced judges to defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguously written federal statutes.
The landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo on June 28 limited the authority of federal agencies, that set rules governing almost every aspect of Americans’ lives.
By a six-to-three margin, the high court did away with a practice known as Chevron deference, rooted in its 1984 opinion in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said a doctrine that defers to agency employees’ interpretations of federal laws “is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”
The Court’s decision strips the government bureaucracy of its ability to make such far-reaching decisions, returning that power to federal judges and, by extension, to Congress, which can avoid disputes over ambiguities by writing clearer legislation.
‘Agencies Will Be Less Aggressive’
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Senior Fellow Joel Zinberg, M.D. says the decision will have an enormous impact on health care because of the trillions of dollars spent annually by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Those departments and agencies impose a multitude of highly detailed regulations managing what health care entities must do to receive payments.
“Agencies will be less aggressive in advancing dubious statutory interpretations in their regulations, which could improve regulations by making them more faithful to congressional intent,” said Zinberg.
Zinberg has argued it is essential that Congress issue Good Guidance Practices.
“Guidance allows agencies to bind the regulated public without adequate notice and public input, without an opportunity for regulated entities to know the full range of rules relevant to their actions,” wrote Zinberg in a policy paper on June 12, 2024.
“Agencies have even used guidance to avoid enforcing existing laws. Should the Supreme Court overturn or substantially limit its longstanding Chevron doctrine, as many expect it will, agencies will likely increasingly rely on guidance to evade notice and comment rulemaking.”
‘A Landmark Victory’
The Court’s decision is a “landmark victory for the Constitution’s Separation of Powers and the rule of law,” said Julie Marie Blake, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Liberty, which has represented clients who have run up against Chevron deference.
“Chevron deference was a very dangerous idea that said judges should not read the law themselves and instead must defer to agencies to determine what the law says,” said Blake. “This led to all sorts of damaging incentives for agencies to be judge, jury, and executioner in their cases. Adjudicating disputes over a contested understanding of a law’s language is the job of the courts.”
The decision protects individual rights and the role of Congress, says Blake.
“Under Chevron, the Biden administration has been greatly endangering individual liberties, including, for example, trying to twist the law to end women’s sports under Title IX,” said Blake. “This is also a resounding win for Congress because it respects Congress’s role in writing laws. Administrative agencies have been trying to take those powers away from Congress.”
‘Judicial Hubris’
Justice Elena Kagan left little doubt she understood the practical implications of the legal blow the court’s decision dealt to the administrative state. The majority replaced a “rule of judicial humility” with one of “judicial hubris,” Kagan argued in her dissenting opinion.
“The court has substituted its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration; its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environmental Protection Agency; and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education.”
Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) attorney Adi Dynar says Chevron gave federal bureaucrats vast, unjustified power over ordinary Americans.
“It allowed bureaucrats to claim power Congress never gave them,” said Dynar. “It distorted our system of government, putting a thumb on the scales of justice at the expense of American citizens facing federal agencies in court.”
‘The Judiciary Should Interpret’
The Loper decision represents a commonsense return to the Constitution’s Separation of Powers, says PLF Senior Attorney Anastasia Boden.
“Congress should pass laws, the Executive should enforce them, and the Judiciary should interpret them,” Boden told Health Care News. “This scheme of checks and balances is our best shot at a free and just society.”
Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D. (bcohen@nationalcenter.org) is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.