Over the last 2 weeks, the United States Supreme Court has released multiple decisions which will have a monumental impact on the federal government’s regulatory powers. The most notable of these were the rulings of Loper Bright Enterprises vs Rainmondo and Corner Post vs Board of Governors. Both of these decisions will have consequences for nearly every niche of legislation, and policy regarding the environment and health are absolutely no exception. Of the two, the more blatantly harmful in this regard is undoubtedly the Loper ruling, which saw the Court strike down the Chevron Doctrine.
Created in 1984, the Chevron Doctrine has long been a pillar in the world of environmental and health regulations at the federal level, giving scientists and experts an important voice in the implementation of regulations. The Doctrine required that whenever Congress gave courts laws with “ambiguities”, the courts were to refer to specialized federal agencies to interpret these laws with their expertise on the subject matter. For example, if Congress were to pass a law regarding water treatment which does not specify the standard of technology for plants, the courts would pass this along to the Environmental Protection Agency to decide since one of their points of expertise is water quality. Without Chevron, however, the courts are not required to pass these ambiguities along to agencies, giving courts massive power over regulations.
The logic in Chevron being overturned is hard to understand; the majority opinion of the Supreme Court claimed the doctrine gave far too much power to agencies in the legislative process. However, judges are not experts in science, they are judges, meaning they are objectively not as qualified to interpret these ambiguities as agencies. Additionally, their appointments are lifetime appointments with far less oversight than federal agencies receive from the Executive Branch, making them far less accountable to the average citizen than agencies. The result of all this will be a legislative process which is less influenced by hard science, more vulnerable to individual and corporate interests, and more chaotic and unorganized.
As if the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine is not bad enough, the Supreme Court additionally gave corporations far more leeway to appeal regulations with the Corner Post case. Prior to this ruling, the statute of limitations allowed appeals to federal regulations within a flat six year period after the regulation was finalized. Now, this window is far larger, as actors have a six year period following the time when they can prove the regulation began “harming” them to appeal these regulations rather than a flat six year period. This expansion, while not as obviously dangerous as Chevron being overturned, gives corporations more time to appeal to health and environmental regulations, particularly those with the money to find loopholes. Just to give an example of how absurd these loopholes can be, big businesses who want to avoid regulations can simply create a new business under a different name, and they are given a six year period to appeal regulations under this new name. Both of these rulings will have enormous consequences to environmental and health legislation, adding an extra layer of danger to existing and future environmental health protections.
