Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
What the Supreme Court Chevron decision means for environmental rules
The decision effectively overturns a long-standing precedent known as the #Chevron #doctrine.
A pair of cases 
️Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and ️Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce
— challenged a federal rule that required the herring industry to cover the costs of observers on fishing boats.
In the decision released Friday, the Supreme Court struck down the rule, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, finding it to be overly burdensome.
Lower courts had previously upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law.
What is the Chevron doctrine?
The doctrine says that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law, as long as that interpretation is reasonable. 
It was established by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1984 ruling in
Favor Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
The 1984 decision represented a victory for the Reagan administration and a loss for environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Under President Ronald Reagan (R), the Environmental Protection Agency had issued a rule that allowed manufacturing plants to install or modify one piece of equipment without obtaining a federal permit.
Environmental groups had challenged the rule, saying it violated the Clean Air Act and would cause more air pollution.
But in the unanimous 6-0 decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the court should defer to the EPA’s reading of the Clean Air Act, and to other agencies’ interpretations of other statutes.
At the time, Chevron was not seen as a historic ruling. 
But it became a major precedent once it filtered through the lower courts, and it eventually gave future administrations more power to issue stronger environmental rules than those of the Reagan era.