| The Supreme Court today made it harder for environmental agencies or any other regulators to defend their actions in court — putting at risk rules designed to tackle far-reaching problems such as climate change. Environmentalists are particularly concerned that the 6-3 decision to toss the Chevron doctrine — one of the most widely cited precedents in the court’s history — could undercut a flurry of ambitious rules from the Biden administration to slash planet-warming pollution. The ruling “undermines vital protections for the American people at the behest of powerful polluters,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, in a statement. For 40 years, the Chevron doctrine directed courts to defer to federal agencies’ readings of unclear statutes, as long as those readings are reasonable. The idea was that agency staff, including scientists and economists, had more expertise than judges in interpreting abstract concepts such as “in the public interest.” But conservative legal theorists have argued it’s an abdication of judicial responsibility. And while Chevron has fallen out of favor in recent years with the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, lower courts have still used it to uphold agency rules. Until now. The court’s decision could imperil President Joe Biden’s recent regulations meant to cut greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and oil and gas operations, all of which are winding their way through the courts. Without those rules, reaching his administration's goal of halving atmospheric pollution by decade’s end is likely impossible. But some environmental advocates say they are less worried about climate regulations, which they say are on strong legal footing without relying on the Chevron doctrine. While the fall of Chevron marks a major victory for conservative activists whose mission has long been to shrink the federal government’s power, it could also stymie the next president’s agenda no matter who wins the White House this fall. “A new administration won’t be able to adopt an alternative interpretation of a statute and expect judicial deference if a prior court has ruled another way,” said Cary Coglianese, a regulatory expert at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Life after death: While the court’s decision marks a major blow to agencies’ authority, it may not be permanent. The court did not overturn the doctrine on constitutional grounds. That means Congress could step in and reinstate it, Coglianese said. “Elections matter, and we might see Chevron rise from the ashes in the future,” he said.
| 
Comments
Post a Comment