Late last month, the Supreme Court voted to overrule Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. The landmark 1984 decision gave rise to the Chevron doctrine, which has now been struck down in a 6-3 decision on ideological lines by the nine justices.
The precedent set in that case has meant that for decades, courts have deferred to federal agencies when interpreting vague laws. It’s been one of the most cited administrative law cases ever — and now, it's gone.
That has wide reaching consequences. With The Show to talk about the impact on environmental issues is Erin X. Wong from High Country News.
Full conversation
LAUREN GILGER: So tell us first, what did the Chevron Doctrine do? And, and what does it mean that it's been struck down here?
ERIN X. WONG: Sure. So as you said, you know, as a precedent of administrative law, it was established in 1984 and under Chevron, judges would defer to federal agencies wherever the law was ambiguous. And so without Chevron agencies don't have the same leeway that they used to have to interpret the law.
And you know, over the course of the last 40 years, you know, Congress has been laws and agencies have been enforcing them under this expectation that they would have more leeway and, and without it, it means that there's a radical shift in power from the executive branch to the judicial branch.
GILGER: OK. So let's talk about what you looked at here. You looked at public lands, wildlife conservation, environmental impacts on those kinds of laws. Let's start with public lands. What could this mean in that arena?
WONG: Sure. So I think in general it's really difficult to say at this stage, you know, which area will be most impacted. It really depends on what's battled out in court. But I think legal experts are concerned that it will be, you know, they're concerned specifically about ambiguities in law, like one, for instance, governing public lands, there's multiple use mandates that, you know, govern how the Forest Service or how the Bureau of Land Management prioritizes. You know, how people are using the land and the Biden administration, for instance, you know, recently issued a rule that elevated conservation to the same level of importance as energy extraction and not everyone agrees with that. So that has already been challenged and that, for instance, could be overruled.
GILGER: What does it mean when it comes to wildlife conservation efforts? There's been big shifts in this under the Biden administration as well.
WONG: Yeah, absolutely. I, I think,, one caveat I'll say is that it's, it's really difficult to say that, you know, the striking down Chevron immediately means that, you know, it's bad for species. We spoke to one expert who said that you know, the endangered species act is relatively prescriptive. So it means that it could be harder to delist species under it without Chevron.
But I do think that in general it's pretty concerning that, that, you know, we're no longer relying on the expertise of agencies. So specifically with wildlife, you know, there's experts in habitat restoration for instance. And instead of them, you'll have judges making the final call.
GILGER: OK. What about when it comes to the most vulnerable issue here in terms of the environment? What do you think is probably most at risk with this big change?
WONG: Sure. I think that climate change is probably the most, important issue that's, that's going to be challenged because many of these fundamental laws like the Clean Air Act, you know, were drafted a long time ago and climate change is a relatively new issue.
And so we've seen the EPA particularly under the Biden administration, issue rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that encourage a shift away from or a shift towards electric vehicles. And I think all of those might be challenged without Chevron.
GILGER: It sounds like all of this could be a big blow to President Biden's environmental legacy. Like he's made some major efforts to combat climate change. And a lot of those could be called into question now.
WONG: Yes, absolutely. I think that's the key is that, yes, is that there's sweeping rules issued and, and many argue that like they are overstepping what the age, you know, what statutes have said.
GILGER: Yeah, let me ask you about energy as well. A big issue right now. Is there any effect here in terms of like transmission lines? Clean energy, you, you looked at those issues as well?
WONG: Absolutely. Yeah. So I think one piece that's interesting is that the Inflation Reduction Act, you know, a lot of those rules are issued by the Treasury Department and a lot of them get really, you know, nitty gritty. And so that's one area where we could see some challenges.
I would say also for transmission lines that we've already seen legal challenges in where, you know how grid operators are planning ahead and how are they going to be able to add solar panels, wind, you know, it's getting to be very complicated for how they do their work. And it's important for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be able to be very careful in how it governs grid operators.
GILGER: Yeah, let me ask you in the last minute or so here. I know High Country News also rounded up some other major issues that are affected by this ruling or could be tribal law, labor or things like that. What were some of the other major issues at hand?
WONG: Sure. Yeah. So it's really going to touch on every aspect, every single agency. And that could include emerging technology. I think a lot of people are worried about how to, you know, regulate artificial intelligence. I would say especially for tribal law, we are going to see. Yeah, just a little less, a little less reliance on agency expertise and those who are working closest to communities.
