
In 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) overruled the principle of Chevron deference and held that courts may not defer to a government administrative agency interpretation of the law (including as set forth in a regulation) simply because a statute is ambiguous and must instead exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
This ruling is deeply concerning because it provides greater opportunity for a wealthy plaintiff, including big corporations, to overturn regulations that are intended to protect our communities, our children, our health, our environment, and our future. These regulations are typically developed by experts in order to implement the basic laws adopted by Congress, and they are informed by the public pursuant to a notice and comment period. Regulations address collective concerns and ensure a functioning society. And agencies are empowered to develop regulations because it would not be possible for Congress to do so.
Now, regulations can be overturned by a corporation-friendly court that may be swayed by the profit motive of the plaintiff. And before filing a lawsuit, the plaintiff can “shop” across the country for a court and jurisdiction that has evidenced its disbelief in, or lack of concern regarding, climate change, systemic inequities, and critical human rights.
The following response on how regulations benefit the public originates from ChatGPT:
1. Protect Public Health and Safety
- Example: Food safety regulations ensure that consumable goods are free of harmful substances. Building codes protect against unsafe construction practices.
- Outcome: Reduces risks of accidents, diseases, and harm.
2. Ensure Fairness in Markets
- Example: Anti-monopoly laws prevent corporations from engaging in unfair practices, ensuring competition and consumer choice.
- Outcome: Protects consumers and small businesses from exploitation.
3. Protect the Environment
- Example: Environmental regulations limit pollution, conserve natural resources, and combat climate change.
- Outcome: Preserves ecosystems and promotes sustainable living.
4. Safeguard Worker Rights
- Example: Labor laws regulate wages, working hours, and workplace safety.
- Outcome: Ensures fair treatment and safe conditions for workers.
5. Support Economic Stability
- Example: Financial regulations prevent fraud and risky practices in banking.
- Outcome: Reduces economic instability and protects individual investments.
6. Promote Social Equity
- Example: Civil rights regulations prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and education.
- Outcome: Fosters equality and protects marginalized groups.
7. Enhance Public Confidence
- Example: Licensing standards for professionals (e.g., doctors, engineers) ensure competence.
- Outcome: Builds trust in services and systems.
The following response on how the end of Chevron deference may impact nonprofits originates from ChatGPT:
- Regulatory Uncertainty
- Without Chevron deference, courts may scrutinize agencies’ decisions more closely, leading to inconsistent or unpredictable interpretations of regulations.
- Nonprofits reliant on clear regulatory guidelines (e.g., environmental groups, healthcare organizations) might face uncertainty in understanding their obligations under the law.
- Increased Legal Challenges
- If Chevron deference is weakened, businesses, nonprofits, and other entities may be more likely to challenge agency decisions in court.
- This could increase litigation costs for nonprofits, either as challengers or as parties affected by disputes over agency rules.
- Delayed Rulemaking
- Agencies might adopt a more cautious approach to issuing rules, fearing they will not hold up in court.
- Delays in rulemaking could impact nonprofits dependent on timely regulatory actions (e.g., housing organizations awaiting HUD guidelines).
- Shifts in Advocacy Strategies
- Nonprofits advocating for or against regulatory changes might need to adjust their strategies, focusing more on legislative advocacy since agencies may have less latitude to interpret statutes.
- This could require more resources for lobbying and public engagement.
- Potential for Political Influence
- Reduced agency discretion might shift power back to Congress or the courts, potentially increasing political influences over regulatory interpretations.
- Nonprofits working on politically contentious issues could find their work more subject to shifts in political climate or judicial philosophy.
- Impact on Federal Funding and Programs
- Many nonprofits rely on programs administered by federal agencies. Changes in how statutes are interpreted could disrupt funding, eligibility, or program implementation.
- For example, ambiguity in tax laws affecting nonprofit status might lead to more challenges to tax-exempt designations.
Additional Resources
What Does the End of the “Chevron Doctrine” Mean to Charitable Nonprofits? (National Council of Nonprofits)
The new holding in Loper Bright means judges need only ask one question: Is the agency’s interpretation consistent with the law? While courts are permitted to give respectful attention to an agency’s view, they no longer need to defer to that view. Many predict that this end of deference will open the “flood gates” to lawsuits challenging even the most mundane regulations. Another likely result is the expansion of aggressive forum-shopping as opponents to agency regulations hunt for judges predisposed to ruling in their favor and then file their lawsuits in those courts.
The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Now? (NRDC)
Today, however, the Supreme Court seized for both itself and lower-court judges a policymaking role that the Constitution did not intend for them to have. The court stripped many federal agencies tasked with protecting public health, public safety, and the environment—including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, to name just two—of their power to interpret the laws they carry out. Instead, federal judges now get to call the shots.
Unpacking the Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling on the “Chevron Doctrine” (Public Policy Institute of California)
What changes do you expect to emerge after the Supreme Court’s decision?
I’m concerned that future decisions will pay less attention to both the scientific realities that underlie our environmental laws and the agency expertise that enables these laws to function in the real world.
Regulatory statutes—especially those in the environmental and public health fields—are immensely complex and leave many important interpretative questions to the agencies. Resolving these questions frequently requires scientific and technical expertise that judges simply don’t possess. And these decisions have ripple effects: the interpretation of one statutory term often has implications for how an agency administers its regulatory programs overall.
Even in the best of political settings, amending legislation like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act is a major undertaking that occurs only once every twenty years or so. The Chevron doctrine allowed the agencies administering these statutes to keep pace with changing conditions and new scientific understanding.