Today, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that overrules Chevron, a precedent that has enabled federal agencies to craft regulations based on creative readings of Congressional statutes.
The Court rolled back Chevron, which means agencies will now have less power to make regulations without explicit Congressional authorization.
State Policy Network experts responded to this decision below, highlighting what this ruling means for states and communities across the country.
Tony Woodlief, executive vice president at State Policy Network and a senior fellow at the Center for Practical Federalism, noted:
“The Supreme Court’s decision should be welcomed by anyone, regardless of political party, who believes laws ought to be made by elected representatives, and not by secretive and ideologically motivated federal bureaucrats. Chevron has long been used to undermine representative government, so this is an important step towards restoring a government that is truly of, by, and for the people. Now state and local leaders who’ve been hamstrung by one-size-fits-all DC mandates will have authority to craft more suitable and beneficial policies, with greater accountability to voters for the outcomes.”
Steve Johnson, a fellow at the Center for Practical Federalism, added:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a clear victory for those that believe unelected bureaucrats should not have the authority to make law.
More importantly, today’s ruling needs to be a wake-up call to Congress. For far too long, Congress has shirked their responsibilities and conveniently delegated the tough job of legislating to unaccountable DC bureaucrats. Loper Bright is certainly a step in the right direction, but the real question is whether Congress will now step up and fulfill their Constitutional duty.”
Ray Nothstine, a Future of Freedom Fellow and senior editor and writer for State Policy Network, noted:
“One of the main problems with the Chevron doctrine is it tipped the scales in a way that aggressively favors unelected bureaucrats at the expense of the people and their elected representatives. Furthermore, Congress and our courts have ceded way too much legislative and interpretive authority to agencies. Reversing this decision is merely one step in hopefully seeing more authority from Congress and state legislators over the faceless and unaccountable government agencies ruling over us.”
Jennifer Butler, a senior policy advisor at State Policy Network, added:
“The Chevron doctrine undermined democratic accountability by granting unelected bureaucrats significant power to potentially circumvent Congressional legislative intent. It also obscured transparency. Chevron made it difficult for a regular citizen or even state and local governments to challenge agency decisions.
As the media and political pundits consider the implications of this case, supporters of the Chevron doctrine will frame any limitation on deference as a ‘sky is falling’ scenario. But the truth is, one-size-fits-all governance by federal agencies harms individuals, businesses, and communities. Certain regulatory responsibilities that are currently held by the federal government can be effectively managed, and perhaps better managed, at the state level.”
Media interested in interviewing these experts should reach out to Camille Walsh, SPN’s Media Relations Manager, at walsh@spn.org.
