On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce overturning the long-standing Chevron doctrine and changing the landscape of federal regulatory enforcement. That principle directed lower courts to defer to agency interpretations when the statute is ambiguous, so long as its interpretation is reasonable.
In the 1984 case Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, the US Supreme Court ruled that agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should use their expertise in interpreting statutes to implement and enforce environmental laws effectively. This deference to agency expertise is crucial because it acknowledges that agencies like the EPA possess the specialized knowledge necessary to address complex environmental issues.
Congress has instructed the EPA, among hundreds of other federal agencies to implement laws like the Clean Water Act. The EPA uses its expertise to translate Congress’ ambiguous instructions into regulations that protect our water. With science constantly evolving and new technologies constantly emerging, the agency experts could interpret and reinterpret statutes for the timely incorporation of new scientific knowledge and technologies into regulatory practices.
The Chevron doctrine offers a predictable legal framework for how environmental laws are interpreted and enforced. By deferring to the EPA’s reasonable interpretations of environmental laws, we ensure that decisions are based on scientific knowledge and technical expertise rather than judicial discretion. It prevents courts from overstepping by making policy decisions, which are better suited to agencies with specific mandates and expertise.
The Loper Bright decision, which was issued by the Court’s conservative supermajority, will dramatically change the way in which judges review federal regulations. By allowing judges to take over the lead role in interpreting ambiguous statutory language, each regulatory interpretation could be subjected to lengthy and inconsistent judicial scrutiny, delaying necessary protections and creating a patchwork of enforcement.
The Supreme Court is aggressively reshaping the foundations of our government and giving corporations and polluters more power to challenge regulations in search of profits. This ruling threatens the legitimacy of hundreds of regulations that protect our River and health. Overturning Chevron takes the power to implement policy Congress has delegated to agencies and places it into the hands of judges. Courts do not answer to the public in the same way that federal agencies do through the President, and the courts cannot be held accountable by the public. But now have control over significant policy interpretations, and “gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.” Justice Kagan, dissenting.
The Chevron doctrine created a dynamic and adaptive regulatory environment. This adaptability is essential for addressing emerging threats to the Spokane River, such as new chemical contaminants or the impacts of climate change. For the Spokane River, agency deference meant that the EPA can set stringent standards for pollutants and adapt regulations based on the latest scientific findings, all with a degree of autonomy essential for effective environmental enforcement. This ruling will affect current efforts to protect the Spokane River and our community from PCBs, PFAS, and other toxic pollutants. The lawsuit against the EPA challenging the promulgation of the Washington Water Quality Standards for PCBs and new challenges to the EPA’s new PFAS limits on drinking water will now heavily rely on judicial interpretations of the applicable science and may result in significantly less protective standards.
While the Chevron doctrine's influence on federal administrative law is waning, its principles continue to resonate at the state level. State agencies still wield considerable discretion, often guided by similar deference doctrines that allow them to interpret and enforce state laws effectively. When a state agency decision is challenged, the court must “limit its function to assuring that the agency has exercised its discretion in accordance with law, and shall not itself undertake to exercise the discretion that the legislature has placed in the agency.” RCW 34.05.578. State-level discretion ensures that local expertise and context remain integral to the regulatory process.
As we navigate this evolving legal terrain, it is crucial for stakeholders to stay informed about both federal and state developments to effectively advocate for their interests and comply with regulatory requirements. The future of administrative law will undoubtedly be shaped by how states exercise their discretion and adapt to the changing judicial environment.