As the Supreme Court’s term winds down, a legal doctrine called Chevron deference hangs in the balance.
Under the doctrine, judges defer to federal agencies when the law is ambiguous. But, the court this week could rule to restrict or overturn that 40-year-old precent.
If they do so, they are likely to give agencies less power and judges more power over a number of policy areas including climate and the environment.
In the case of such a ruling, “in the short term, it means that our protections are gone … because that happens to be the makeup of the federal judiciary right now — they’re overwhelmingly conservative,” said James Goodwin, policy director of the Center for Progressive Reform.
Opponents of Chevron argue, however, that the current status quo gives too much power to agencies.
“If you’re suing an agency or an agency is suing you, there ought to be a level playing field there,” said Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Meanwhile, some supporters of more regulation argue that a weakened or overturned Chevron may not eliminate key Biden climate rules, which were likely written with a change to Chevron in mind.
“Any regulation that it was concerned about reaching the Supreme Court, I think it designed and justified them in ways that didn’t rely on the Chevron doctrine,” Ian Fein, senior counsel at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told reporters.
Read more when a full report runs later today at TheHill.com.
