In the wake of the Trump-Biden presidential debate, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly delivered a decision with implications for years to come. Overturning the nearly forty-year-old Chevron Doctrine, the Court struck a significant blow to federal regulatory power, marking a major victory for advocates on behalf of judicial power to interpret law and dealing a substantial setback to the Biden administration's regulatory ambitions.

 

The Rise and Fall of Chevron Deference


The infamous Chevron doctrine, born from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., mandated that courts defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Those in favor of the decision observe that it invested regulatory agencies with the power to address complex issues such as the regulation of emissions and it reduced the likelihood of frivolous litigation aimed at challenging legitimate legislation enacted by democratically-elected representatives and senators. This doctrine, though, has been critiqued as enabling the expansion of federal bureaucracy, which tends to wield increasing influence as its decisions are protected from the checks and balances of court oversight.

 

The Chevron Decision did in fact lead to the ballooning of federal bureaucracy and power, sometimes with agencies issuing regulations that stretched the bounds of their statutory authority. This kind of administrative overreach could be seen in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions as “air pollutants” under 1963’s Clean Air Act. Because this interpretation would have required an absurd number of small sources of greenhouse gasses to require permitting, the EPA used the auspice of the Chevron decision to publish the “Tailoring Rule,” which raised the threshold for greenhouse gasses, effectively rewriting numerical standards established by law in 1963.

 

We all want clean air, but the EPA’s action effectively undermined the democratic process and enhanced power for career bureaucrats insulated from the election cycle, which the Constitution enshrines as the public’s protection from the abuse of those in power.

 

June 28th’s ruling corrected this imbalance of power. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared, "Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority." The decision reclaims the judiciary's role as a check on agency overreach.

 

Empowering Judges, Reining in Bureaucrats


The ruling represents a seismic shift in the balance of power, making it significantly easier for judges to scrutinize and challenge the actions of federal regulators. Without the protection of the Chevron interpretation, federal agencies will be forced to adhere to an accountability and transparency usually expected of democratic institutions. Empowered to exercise independent judgment, justices can now curb the tendency to indulge in excess and self-preservation that takes hold of bureaucracies over time.

 

Roman Martinez, an attorney representing one of the victorious fishing companies, spoke of the ruling glowingly as a triumph for individual liberty and the rule of law: "By ending Chevron deference, the court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach."

 

A Long Overdue Shift


The response to the ruling has been predictably divided. While private industry that bristles at overregulation is celebrating, groups that have achieved their goals through regulation are unhappy. Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, lamented the decision, arguing that it elevates judicial power at the expense of expert agencies. "A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris," Kagan wrote.

 

Kagan rightly points out the sometimes flawed interpretation of justices, but judicial oversight and interpretation is a check in power upon which the Constitution relies. Further, it has a remedy: legislators can write laws that provide for less ambiguity of interpretation. On the other hand, agencies that interpret law outside of the judicial-legislative-executive tripod upon which American governance rests run the risk of receiving minimal accountability.

 

A Blow to Regulatory Overreach


The Biden administration defended the regulation in question and the broader Chevron doctrine, arguing that it was essential for effective governance. However, critics argue that this stance only underscores the administration's reliance on regulatory overreach to achieve policy goals that often lack legislative support. By removing enactment outside of the arena of public discourse and sentiment, the administrative approach to governing thrives in secret rather than under the spotlight of democratic accountability.

 

Nevertheless, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre criticized the ruling as a setback, claiming it favors "Republican-backed special interests." This decision need not be couched in partisan terms, though. The restoration of constitutional governance is a win for all no matter their political affiliation.

 

A New Era of Accountability


American political trends tend to veer between the poles of libertarianism and socialism. Whereas this decision is more aligned with libertarian than socialist sensibilities, it is not radical or without precedent. The overturning of Chevron signals an end to the ease with which little-understood agencies can rubber stamp backroom decisions. It increases the likelihood that good ideas – those that withstand public scrutiny – will receive more legislative attention. And this, in a democracy, is good for all.