Advocates, Experts See Change After Fall of Chevron Doctrine

The Supreme Court's ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine, a decision that curbs agencies' power to impose regulations to achieve congressional goals, does not eliminate the EPA's overall responsibility to address pollution that's driving global warming, experts said. But the particular rules it uses, included in its efforts such as encouraging the shift to electric vehicles and using carbon capture technology to cut emissions from power plants, are at risk, the New York Times reports. While Chief Justice John Roberts said the decision does not affect past cases on agency rules, experts say it will affect future regulations designed to protect the environment. With judges no longer having to defer to the executive branch in interpreting regulations, the future of climate change policy could look like this:

• In the near term: The Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies could face an increase in the number of lawsuits challenging their policies. While those cases are in the court system, Republican members of Congress could be emboldened to step up oversight of President Biden's environmental actions, per the Washington Post. A House Republican Study Committee staff memo released Monday said overturning Chevron "could open the door to Congress ... rolling back Biden's woke and weaponized administrative agenda."
• A transfer of clout: But over time, Congress, like the administration, will see authority over such policies moving away from it, per the AP. "Federal judges will now have the first and final word about what statutes mean,″ said Craig Green, a Temple University law professor. "That's a big shift in power.″
• The next president: The change could hinder the agenda of whichever candidate wins this year's presidential election, per Politico. "A new administration won't be able to adopt an alternative interpretation of a statute and expect judicial deference if a prior court has ruled another way," said Cary Coglianese, a regulatory expert at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

• An exception: One chemical industry advocate said government efforts on toxic chemicals probably will be unaffected, per the Post. The EPA interprets scientific studies in assessing the health risks of chemicals; the decisions aren't made by interpreting statutes, said Madeleine Boyer of Beveridge & Diamond.
• Down the road: An advocate who argued the case before the court said the ruling could keep agencies from using old environmental laws to battle new environmental problems "that the modern world throws at us," per the Post. "We could end up with a weaker federal government, and that would mean that interest groups would be freer to pollute without restraint," David Doniger said.

(More US Supreme Court stories.)