Chevron overturned.
The Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the Chevron doctrine, which has governed the relationship between the Administration and the Courts for more than 40 years. This ruling resolves the combined cases of Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, issued yesterday. It is a lengthy ruling, with even longer dissenting opinions, and it apparently establishes a new framework for controlling discretion in the United States.
The Chevron ruling has always been a controversial issue between liberals and conservatives. The current ruling is clear evidence of this controversy, with the written debate between Kagan’s dissenting opinion and the majority opinion. A 6-3 majority has undoubtedly sought to dismantle the myth of the Chevron doctrine, which provided a framework of deference to the Administration.
Some may recall that the Chevron doctrine originated from a two-step test to determine when a judicial body could analyze whether there had been arbitrariness: “Two questions arise when a court reviews an agency’s interpretation of the law it administers. First, always, is the question of whether Congress has directly addressed the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency, it must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
This deference is precisely what is considered erroneous and problematic in the ruling, leading to the explicit overturning of this doctrine. The effect has more political than legal connotations, reflecting the conservative currents seeking to eliminate yet another vestige of a progressive Supreme Court. This is similar to what happened with Roe v. Wade.
Possibly, the ruling errs on the side of voluntarism in exposing the defects of the Chevron doctrine and the problems it poses. Moreover, it is a resolution that seems detached from reality regarding the Court’s powers in addressing issues of a political or technical nature.
Furthermore, the reminder of the Marbury v. Madison ruling forgets that “when the heads of departments act as political agents and the members of the executive branch execute the will of the President, or are called to act in cases where the Government has discretionary power granted by the Constitution or laws, it is evident that in such cases their acts are subject to political, not judicial, scrutiny.”
In contrast, it asserts that “Finally, the view that the interpretation of ambiguous statutory provisions amounts to policymaking suited for political actors rather than courts is especially mistaken because it rests on a profound misconception of the judicial role.” Essentially, this ruling reflects a misunderstanding of the powers of the State and the scope of administrative discretion.
In any case, the Supreme Court’s attempt to reduce discretion and expand the scope of judicial review to gain objectivity appears very naïve. This naïveté stems from the judge’s own role. Nieto stated in 2021 that “the judge, as a human being, has all the shortcomings inherent in their nature, which sometimes frustrate their objectives: ignorance (who can claim to know the entire sprawling legal order?), incompetence (who can aspire to master the technicalities of an increasingly complex law?), the prejudices of their personality (who can ensure they do not decide based on ideas acquired in their family, training, and social class?), and ultimately their venality, which prevents them from always resisting economic, careerist, or political pressures.” In this case, we could note that the majority’s appointment origins are behind this ruling.
The context in which this ruling was issued is also particularly damaging. It affects the powers of administrative agencies to impose environmental regulations and combat climate change. As can be seen, this is not insignificant, considering that the U.S. is the largest global polluter. There will also be problems regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and worker protection agencies. Bad times for the protection of the public interest.
