The “Chevron deference of doctrine,” which bit the dust last week when the Supreme Court rejected it, means that courts will no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws. It’s not the end of federal regulations. It does make them more vulnerable to legal challenges.
Since 1984, ‘Chevron’ has been one of the cornerstones of federal administrative law, which was used to create regulations.
‘Chevron Reverence’ burst onto the scene with the historic case, Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468, US 837 (1984). “Chevron deference” refers to the extent to which judicial deference is accorded to administrative actions.
In the original Chevron case, the High Council set out a legal test for when the court should defer to an agency’s response or interpretation, finding that such judicial deference is appropriate when the agency’s response was not unreasonable. The deference could only be used if Congress remained silent on the issue.
And yes, Chevron’s demise will impact federal food safety regulations at the Food and Drug Administration, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a dozen other federal agencies that play a role in food safety.
Alexandra Grose, senior policy advisor at Consumer Reports, said the Supreme Court’s “decision is anti-consumer and threatens countless health, safety, environmental and marketplace safeguards that protect Americans every day.”
“The Court’s ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the entire federal government, emboldening companies to attack common-sense rules and leaving it up to individual judges – with their individual policy preferences – to decide the details of laws passed by Congress adopted, to implement, instead of entrusting that role. to highly trained subject matter experts,” Gross added.
“Congress has charged federal agencies with protecting consumers from threats such as contaminated food, dangerous products, dirty air and water, and predatory financial schemes. It must act quickly and thoughtfully to pass legislation to ensure that federal agencies have the necessary discretion. Congress cannot anticipate or respond to every contingency, and agency experts must ensure – consistent with the law – that federal regulations reflect the realities of the marketplace and keep pace with the changing times.”
Consumer Reports viewed the Supreme Court’s decision as undermining a critical layer of consumer protection by granting legal discretion to judges rather than experts in the subject matter.
The Chevron Doctrine limited federal court judges from replacing their interpretation of a statute with a reasonable interpretation of the administrative agency.
When a statute is silent or ambiguous on a specific issue, a court under Chevron must decide whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute.
Some say, “Chevron has been dead for years.” Since 1984 its scope has been limited. Only agency interpretations resulting from formal procedures are eligible for deference. In contrast, Chevron was disrespected in opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, or other formats that do not have the force of law.
The Supreme Court overturned the Chevron Doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024, by a 6-3 majority ruling that it violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and gave unnecessary authority to unelected government officials.
Writing for the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.”
(Click here to sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News.)