Two of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions will fundamentally reshape how our government operates. According to Paul Lester, Of Counsel for Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., “The Supreme Court’s overruling of the Chevron Doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et. al. by a 6-2 vote overturned a key administrative law legal precedent that had been the standard for over 40 years on how administrative agencies enforce federal regulatory statutes in a very wide area of consumer activity. Ironically, although the Loper Case and its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce, were not workplace-related, the general impact of these rulings is likely to significantly affect the authority of numerous federal agencies to properly regulate employer behavior in the marketplace as well.”
What is the Chevron Doctrine?
According to Lester, the Chevron Doctrine established the authority of experts in federal agencies, which operate under the President as part of the Executive Branch, to interpret legislation in their areas of specialization. Judges would defer to the expertise of these highly qualified individuals during court cases.
“Key administrative agencies that have been operating under the Chevron Doctrine promulgate and enforce protective regulations on a daily basis,” Lester explains. “These include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration within the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in the Loper and Relentless cases have ended this 40-year-old legal precedent.
The Loper and Relentless Rulings
In the Loper and Relentless decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court stripped power from federal agencies and gave it to the Judicial Branch, over which the Supreme Court itself exerts authority.
“Under the Loper and Relentless rulings, federal administrative agencies will no longer receive deference from courts in their regulation of consumer rights and protections as they have under the Chevron Doctrine,” Lester explains. “Instead, these decisions mandate that, in the event of litigation brought by private plaintiffs of all types in the federal regulatory arena. The courts, rather than the agencies, are responsible for determining whether any ambiguity exists in a federal regulatory statute. If ambiguity is found, the courts must decide how such claimed ambiguity is to be interpreted.”
Throwing the legal system into chaos
Lester anticipates this decision will have numerous negative ramifications and consequences. First and foremost, he foresees confusion in the legal system due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturn of the Chevron Doctrine.
“To quote Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in Lopez, by removing the Chevron Doctrine as settled law, the new Loper case approach ‘will cause a massive shock to the legal system,’” Lester says. “In effect, this ruling replaces the expertise of highly qualified employees in the various administrative agencies with an already overly burdened federal judiciary. In most cases, judges have nowhere near the resume of the civil servants formulating policy for administrative agencies. Yet they will need to determine whether a federal statute is ambiguous, and if so, how to resolve such a claimed ambiguity.”
As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s move, an enormous amount of case law can no longer be depended on as precedent.
Lester says that research shows that the Chevron Doctrine has been instrumental as a source of law in over 18,000 citations in federal administrative agency litigation. “That is now all for naught since the Loper and Relentless cases, in effect, take a judicial power grab. By doing so, the Supreme Court deprives the very experts regulating key consumer matters from properly doing their job.”
Moreover, Lester warns that the Loper and Relentless decisions will likely have a negative impact on American consumers.
A threat to consumer rights and protections
“The immediate effects of the Lopez cases overturning the Chevron Doctrine may not appear for a while. On the other hand, one cannot overstate the enormity of the shift of legal decision-making on consumer rights and protections,” Lester says.
Traditionally, federal agencies have shielded the public from harm in many domains.
“Federal Agency rulemaking — which is subject to public comment — is what drives most consumer protection actions at the federal level,” Lester explains. “The Environmental Protection Agency regulates the air we breathe and the water we drink. The Food and Drug Administration regulates the food we eat and the medicines we take. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration governs safety conditions in the workplace. The National Labor Relations Board and related agencies within the Department of Labor oversee the earnings and bargaining power of workers (whether in unions or otherwise). The Bureau of Consumer Protection and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission shape the protection of consumers and unfair business practices. The Consumer Product Safety Commission protects the public from unreasonable risks or injury or death from consumer products.”
With the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, federal agencies’ ability to protect Americans can be questioned and weakened.
“The Loper and Relentless cases mean agencies must defer to a court’s determination of whether there is such an ambiguity. If so, what its proper interpretation could mean,” Lester explains. “This, in essence, guts the ability of the agencies to do their job. They must protect the consumer as to health, safety, fairness in the workplace, and fair business practices in the marketplace. They also protect consumer product safety, and a myriad of other day-to-day societal concerns.”
A Power grab of momentous importance
According to Lester, the Loper, and Relentless decisions are “of momentous importance”.
“This power grab by the Supreme Court dilutes and diminishes the authority of the Executive branch of government. It limits the government’s ability to implement administrative regulations through independent federal agencies. The court transfers this authority, without any proper basis, to the Executive and Judicial branches,” Lester says.