top of page

Overturning Chevron: A New Threat to Climate Progress

Writer's picture: Yashvir SinghYashvir Singh

Updated: Jul 22, 2024

On January 17, 2024, a group of fishermen, angry at the National Marine Fisheries Service for requiring them to purchase sea monitoring equipment, argued their case in the Supreme Court. They said the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 did not authorize the agency to require fishers to purchase monitoring equipment.

 

Traditionally, federal agencies had been given deference in the implementation of congressional policy, a rule decided upon in a 1984 case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The expectation was the same as it had historically been. The court was to side with the National Marine Fisheries Service, allowing them to continue regulating as they had been. 


But in a landmark 6-3 decision made on June 28, 2024, with all Republican justices voting together, the precedent set in Chevron had been overturned. The decision in the case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, meant more than simply allowing fishermen to go on without purchasing monitoring programs: it meant federal agencies no longer had the final say for the implementation of congressional policies. Specifically, decades of progress in environmental and climate policy pushed by EPA’s interpretation of Congressional acts would be put in jeopardy of being challenged in courts. 


The Background to the Chevron Case

Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Natural Resources Defence Council, Inc. is a historic case that was decided on June 25, 1984. It challenged an EPA provision that allowed the modification or installation of pollution-emitting devices in facilities such as manufacturing plants without a permit, as long as total emissions in the plant did not increase. It was argued that this concept challenged the Clean Air Act, which stated that permits were required for altering pollution-emitting devices.


The case was an argument over semantics, with environmental groups arguing the Clean Air Act’s specific language applied individually to each pollution-emitting device, such as individual smokestacks, whereas the EPA argued that the language applies to pollution-emitting sources as a whole, such as a manufacturing plant.


The Supreme Court sided with the EPA represented by Chevron, saying that because Congress did not have specific definitions for verbiage in the Clean Air Act, the federal agency in charge of its implementation, the EPA, was allowed to develop a reasonable interpretation. This set the standard for numerous cases federal agencies would use to be able to implement congressional policy, and would prove vital for the EPA as environmental awareness grew and climate change became a more apparent problem. 


Why This Matters

The decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo hampers the EPA’s ability to implement future policies. Congress either has to give direct methods for the implementation of policy or the EPA risks court challenges and judicial interpretations. This burdens the process of passing climate legislation and can make the cooperation necessary to pass these laws much harder to achieve. It also opens the door for all past decisions to be challenged, including cases decided based upon the Chevron deference. 


One such case is Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the EPA’s interpretation of a regulation in the Clean Air Act, requiring companies to obtain permits for the installation of emission-increasing equipment. Another more recent rule implemented by the EPA to curb emissions from power plants may also be challenged. The regulation states that coal power plants intended to keep running beyond 2039 must cut their emissions from smokestacks by 90%. 


These implementations are not direct orders mandated by Congress, but methods the EPA uses to apply congressional mandates to broader goals. Unfortunately, such regulations can now be challenged again, as the general rule of deference to agencies is now gone. This doesn’t mean it will be overturned. In fact, despite voting to overturn Chevron, Justice Roberts believed that past cases would remain intact, though Justice Kagan expressed skepticism, believing that the case granted too much power to the judiciary which may overturn them. 


What we do know is that it leaves these past cases and regulations much more vulnerable to being attacked, and hampers the ability for all future policies to be passed. With this decision, Republicans have gone from the party that signed the Clean Air Act into law five decades ago to taking power away from scientists and experts who use it to curb growing emissions.


14 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

コメント


  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • TikTok

© 2025 by Sykom LLC. 

bottom of page