July 30, 2024
Explainer: What is the Chevron Deference, and Why Should You Care?
by Loretta Lawler and Hal Wright

In the past two years, Trump's Supreme Court has made numerous rulings which defy common sense, and rob us of safety and freedom. The decision related to the "Chevron Deference" is hardest to fathom, and possibly the most dangerous.

With Trump's three justices clearing the way, the Supreme Court has veered sharply to the right, most especially with these four rulings:

It is this last decision which concerns us in this article.

Federal agencies are special government organizations set up for a specific purpose, such as the management of resources, financial oversight of industries, or addressing national security issues. These organizations are typically created by legislative action, but may initially be set up by presidential order as well.

The Chevron Deference or Chevron Doctrine dates back to the Reagan administration. Based on a previous Supreme Court ruling, it allows courts to defer to the expertise of federal agencies as they enforce regulatory laws passed by Congress. Legislation related to health and safety, to the environment, to finance, and to other subjects of government oversight often lacks the specificity needed to facilitate enforcement. Federal agencies fill in the gaps.

Now, it's important to remember that federal agencies exist because unregulated private activity created unsafe working conditions, damage to the environment, dangerous medication, and contaminated food. As a rule, corporations are not the best stewards of their own activities. They bristle at agencies’ ability to enforce regulations and limit their business operations.

In the aftermath of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a major concern is impending chaos as major corporations' attempts to appeal earlier rulings which had heretofore been settled law. The decision also represents what some define as major overreach by the courts. “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent. “As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”

Corporations are focused on the bottom line. It’s taken decades of government policy and regulations to institute safeguards that protect the health and well being of corporate employees, consumers, and neighbors. Allowing the various district courts to interpret and rule on regulations independently and without the knowledge and expertise of agency subject matter experts threatens to roll back protections for everything from Worker Safety (OHSA) to food and drug safety (FDA) to environmental protections of our air and water (EPA).

It's worth noting that all four of the decisions mentioned at the beginning of this article align neatly with the goals of Project 2025. It's also worth remembering that public safety was once a bipartisan project. Richard Nixon founded the EPA in 1970. Those days are long gone. Today, only one party puts We The People over corporate interests and profits. The only way to undo the damage caused by a Supreme Court which has grossly overstepped its authority is to elect Democrats at all levels and in all branches of government.