Chances are that typical Americans have never heard phrases like “Chevron deference” and “administrative state,” so most of the public will likely shrug in response to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. But it is not an exaggeration to say that this one statement will impact almost everyone in the country by changing the way government works.
My MSNBC colleague Jordan Rubin explained it this morning:
I am aware that when normal people see the words “federal regulatory agency” in a sentence, they immediately look for something else to read. But stick with me for a moment, because I think readers will ultimately care about this more than they might first think.
If this weren’t important, corporate giants—including the extremely wealthy special interests that showered Judge Clarence Thomas with lavish gifts—would not have spent the past few decades fighting tooth and nail for the victory handed out by Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices . them today.
The underlying problem is not as complex as it seems. Congress passes all sorts of laws that are intended to protect the public, but it is unrealistic to think that lawmakers can legislate with detailed specificity and foresight. For example, Congress can pass a bill that addresses air pollution prevention, but it does not and cannot write technical details about particulate matter.
With this in mind, the legislature delegates these decisions to relevant federal agencies. Congress passes laws regarding food safety, but it’s up to scientists and health experts at the FDA to hammer out the details and shape federal policy to keep people from getting sick. Congress passes laws regarding car safety, but officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set specific standards.
In 1984, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in a case called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense that this is the way the regulatory process should work, and if unavoidable legal ambiguities existed, the relevant federal agencies would have regulatory flexibility.
Today, Republican-appointed judges reversed that decision. Instead of the federal government transferring power to experts in relevant agencies, power will now shift to the courts.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan walked through some practical scenarios. When it comes to food safety, for example, “When does an alpha-amino acid polymer qualify as such a ‘protein’? Must it have a specific, defined sequence of amino acids?” For the past 40 years, such questions have been answered by federal scientific experts. In the future, the Supreme Court’s far-right majority expects judges to provide the answers.
Similarly, Kagan added, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, which mandates the designation of “vertebrate fish or wildlife” species, including “distinct population segments.”[s]” of those species. The judge asked, “What makes one population segment ‘distinct’ from another? Should the Service treat the population of western gray squirrels in Washington State as ‘distinct’ because it is geographically separated from other western gray squirrels?”
For the past forty years, such questions have been answered by knowledgeable Fish and Wildlife Service officials. In the future, the Supreme Court’s far-right majority expects judges to provide these answers as well.
“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—however expertise-driven or policy-laden—concerning the meaning of regulatory law,” Kagan concluded. “As if it doesn’t have enough on its plate, the majority is turning itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
This will change the way government works, and it won’t be a change for the better.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
