WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - In Media Res: Chevron Deference

Episode Date: November 26, 2024

Join Hershey and Stephanie as they discuss the Supreme Court's controversial overturning of Chevron deference.

Hello, beautiful people, and welcome to our show on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. My name is Hershey. And my name is Stephanie. And we're your host for MediaRes, a show where we examine a landmark court case, starting from the middle of the action. In this episode, we will be discussing a highly influential Supreme Court case that has recently been overturned. In June of 2024, the Supreme Court ruled to overturn the practice of Chevron deference

that has been used by federal judges since the case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984. Before we get into the implication of the latest ruling, let's unpack the original Chevron case. The genesis of this case can be found with a requirement under the Clean Air Act of 1977, which specified that states that had not yet attained a certain level of air quality standards put forth by the Act were required to institute a, a permit program that would regulate new or modified major stationary sources of air pollution. However, in 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency or EPA began putting out regulations that would allow states to define a stationary source as an entire plant, meaning that few permits would be needed and the individual plants would have greater freedom in installing or modifying equipment

as long as the total amount of pollution was not increased. The National Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups challenged the regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, saying that their umbrella or bubble grouping of pollution sources went against the original provisions of the Clean Air Act. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of this position, saying that the EPA's regulations were inappropriate for a program designed to improve air quality.

When the case reached this Supreme Court, the court actually reversed the decision of the lower court, arguing that Congress's definition of the term stationary source in the Clean Air Act is not specific enough to rule out the EPA's regulations. And therefore, their permit regulations were not in violation of the act. At this point, I know our listeners must be thinking, okay, this is all fine and dandy, but how are these incredibly specific regulations and rulings at all relevant to anything else? Well, Chevron v. NRDC set a precedent known as Chevron deference, which was a policy held by federal courts where in cases in which there was a federal law that was ambiguous on a particular issue, the court would defer to the administrative agency's interpretation of the law, giving them deference. Though it might not seem like it, the Chevron case was one of the most influential rulings of the Supreme Court. Between 1984 and 2024, the case was cited over 18. thousand times in federal cases on administrative law. But controversy quickly arose over the shifting

of power necessitated by the Chevron doctrine. Under Chevron, federal judges would essentially give up their power to interpret the ambiguity of laws, instead deferring to an administrative agency. Not only does this take power away from the judicial system, but many have argued that it has given undue power to the administrative agencies that fall under the executive branch. As we all know for middle school civics class the power to create laws falls under the legislative branch and the executive is only meant to execute and enforce them in lapper bright v raymondo the recent twenty twenty four case that overturned chevron deference a group of fisheries petitioned against the national marine services over a regulation that would require fisheries to shoulder the cost

of having an observer from the agency present on each boat to monitor the catch. Besides the fact that this regulation went far beyond the reasonableness requirement of Chevron deference, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the deference itself must be overturned because it goes directly against the Administrative Procedures Act, a federal law which specifically states that courts have the power to decide legal questions by applying their own judgment. And the administrative agency's interpretation is not correct just because they have deference. Those against the decision to overturn Chevron, including dissenting justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, said that the decision would create a shock to the legal system, which has relied on Chevron for so long. They further believe that giving agencies difference in interpretive disputes is the most logical thing to do, as administrative agencies have the technical expertise and knowledge that Congress cannot have by virtue of its structure.

Well, the debate is certainly interesting, and I can honestly see both sides of the argument. But I'm afraid that's all we have time for on this episode of In Media Res. We are your host, Hershey and Stephanie, and we thank you for joining us. So we'll catch you next time on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM.