At issue in the case set to go before justices is whether courts should defer to interpretation by federal agencies when a law could have multiple meanings, a practice known as Chevron deference.
In practical terms, this means the Supreme Court is considering whether to weaken the ability of a presidential administration to put forward regulations meant to counter pollution or climate change or to protect consumers without clearer authorization from Congress.
“This is a campaign to weaken government’s ability to protect you from these kinds of modern dangers whether they’re to your health through unsafe air or water or … through unsafe drugs or food or whether it’s your financial security,” said David Doniger, senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) climate and clean energy program.
“Those protections require a government with some capacity to effectively respond, and this case is about destroying that capability,” Doniger added.
Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said that if Chevron deference is overturned, that could have a “chilling effect” on federal agencies.
“It will most likely lessen the amount of regulation and the scope and extent of regulation,” he told The Hill.
Burger added that at least in the short term, legal challenges to existing regulations will “probably” be more successful without deference.
Read more in a full report from Rachel and our colleague Zach Schonfeld at TheHill.com.
