SCOTUS is considering a challenge to the power of federal regulators

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case centered around whether (and how) to curb the legal authority of federal agencies.

The case focuses on a 1984 SCOTUS ruling known as the “Chevron doctrine” (or Chevron), which established a precedent requiring the US court system to defer to federal agencies when it comes to laws that are ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations.

The arguments: The Court’s more conservative Justices seemed to agree with right-leaning advocacy groups, who argue Chevron is unconstitutional because it requires judges to systematically defer to one powerful party – government agencies – without a congressional mandate. Critics also contend that over decades of gridlock in Congress, Chevron has essentially allowed the executive branch and federal agencies to circumvent proper lawmaking processes.

• The Court’s liberal justices appeared partial to the Biden admin’s concern that removing or scaling back Chevron would require unelected judges to make technical and scientific policy decisions, which federal agencies are better equipped to handle.
• Chevron proponents also note that Congress often writes broad laws to give agencies the added flexibility to address complex issues.

💥 The potential impact: Chevron has become one of the most-cited SCOTUS precedents over the past four decades, racking up 15,000+ citations in federal court cases – a significant portion of which could be revisited and possibly overturned if Chevron is scaled back or removed. These include existing precedents allowing US federal agencies to regulate health care, commerce, finance, workplace safety, and the environment.

👀 Looking ahead… The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its verdict sometime before the end of June.