On January 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, challenging the legal principle known as Chevron deference. This principle, established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holds that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a law it administers when the statute is ambiguous or silent on an issue.
While it’s difficult to predict the outcomes of these cases, many legal observers anticipate that the court may be inclined to overturn Chevron deference. Should they choose this route, it may lead to considerable ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the Clean Air Act along with other similar regulatory frameworks.
The petitioners contended that Chevron deference violates Article III of the Constitution and the separation of powers by depriving courts of their duty to interpret the laws. The petitioners also argued that Chevron deference is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing Section 706 of the APA which states that courts should decide for themselves what a statute means rather than defer to an agency’s interpretation.
If the Supreme Court decides to overturn Chevron deference on the grounds of the APA, it could give rise to confusion, particularly regarding the Clean Air Act. This is mainly due to Section 307 of the Clean Air Act, which has provisions on administrative proceedings and judicial reviews but does not directly address the reviewing court’s duty to decide all relevant questions of law or interpret the constitutional and statutory provisions.
The potential for ambiguity arises when considering cases under the Clean Air Act and other statutory frameworks with similar provisions. Apart from creating confusion, any such scenarios could result in a significant impact, considering the extent and range of regulations under the Clean Air Act and subsequent litigation.
While the Supreme Court has the option to draft an opinion that sidesteps this issue, it will be intriguing to see how they choose to address it. The course they take could have significant implications, particularly for the Clean Air Act and similar regulatory frameworks.
The original article can be read here.