July 23, 2024

Supreme Court Spikes Chevron Deference

In June 2024, the Supreme Court rejected the seminal and longstanding “Chevron deference” legal doctrine. [Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. vs. Raimondo, et. al.; U.S. Supreme Court; Docket No. 22-451; June 28, 2024] This cornerstone of administrative law has been used as a basis for crafting all regulations implemented by all federal administrative agencies (not just EPA) for the past forty years under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Because the Supreme Court overturned this doctrine without providing an alternative test, it is up to individual federal judges to make their own interpretations as to whether regulations are lawful going forward. As a result, the legal landscape for all federal regulations will be in turmoil for some time.

Established as a legal doctrine in 1984, “Chevron deference” essentially says if an administrative agency’s implementation of a law via regulation is reasonable, the courts will defer to the agency’s expertise when the law is not explicit. [Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, et. al.; U.S. Supreme Court; Docket No. 82-1005; June 25, 1984] When crafting the Chevron doctrine, the Supreme Court noted when the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, the court must decide whether the agency’s action was based on a “permissible construction” of the statute. Chevron deference was an acknowledgement that the judiciary did not have the expertise to fully understand some of the technical nuances of regulations. During the past forty years, over 18,000 federal court cases have been decided based on this doctrine.

Under the June 28, 2024 rejection of Chevron, the Supreme Court now opines: “The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.”

In a separate opinion, the Supreme Court found that the six-year statute of limitations in the APA does not accrue until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. [Corner Post, Inc. vs. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; U.S. Supreme Court; Docket No. 22-1008; July 1, 2024] Longstanding precedent held that the six-year clock on statute of limitations on regulatory actions crafted under the APA started when the regulatory action was final. Thus, whenever a rulemaking was promulgated by a federal government agency, the six-year clock began.

Under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, the six-year clock does not start until a “plaintiff is injured by final agency action.” In other words, if a person is newly injured by longstanding regulations, they have six years to challenge those regulations. On the surface, it appears that this opens the door to relitigate existing regulations based upon a new claim of timely injuries.

The issue this creates for all regulatory compliance, including environmental compliance, is that many of our current regulations have survived court challenges based on Chevron deference. By rejecting that doctrine, and reimagining the six-year statute of limitations clock, the Supreme Court has opened the door for forty years of legal challenges to regulations to be refiled, relitigated, and rejudged—with no guidelines for judges to follow in making their determinations. In addition, many states have authorized regulatory programs that may be more stringent, meaning compliance requirements in the coming years may be both chaotic and patchwork.

McCoy and Associates has provided in-depth information to assist environmental professionals with complex compliance issues since 1982. Our seminars and publications are widely trusted by environmental professionals for their consistent quality, clarity, and comprehensiveness.

Disclaimer

Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this document; however, McCoy and Associates, Inc. makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with the publication of this information. McCoy and Associates, Inc. expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or damage resulting from its use or for the violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or regulation with which this information may conflict. McCoy and Associates, Inc. does not undertake any duty to ensure the continued accuracy of this information.

This document addresses issues of a general nature related to the federal environmental regulations. Persons evaluating specific circumstances dealing with the environmental regulations should review state and local laws and regulations, which may be more stringent than federal requirements. In addition, the assistance of a qualified professional should be enlisted to address any site-specific circumstances.