This story originally appeared on Slate and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
US environmental law is a relatively young discipline. The Environmental Protection Agency is a little more than 50 years old, and the Clean Air and Clean Water actsâlegislation we today see as bedrocks of public health and environmental safeguardsâwere passed in 1963 and 1973, respectively. When the case that would become Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council was filed in the early 1980s, the EPA was just beginning to pump out rules that would have major economic consequences for business and industry.
In its decision last week overturning Chevron deferenceâa crucial legal precedent that gives federal agencies the ability to interpret laws that are otherwise vague or ambiguousâthe Supreme Court has taken the future of an incalculable number of regulations on public health, clean water, and clean air out of the hands of scientists for organizations like the EPA and passed it along to nonexpert judges who will hear challenges to these regulations in court.
âAnybody who doesnât like a federal-agency regulation can now bring it before a court,â said Jillian Blanchard, a director at Lawyers for Good Government. âItâs scary.â
Overturning Chevron is just a cog in the larger plan to dismantle the administrative state and environmental law as we know itâand the ultraconservative forces and fossil fuel defenders, like the Koch brothers, behind it are only getting started.
Ironically, the Chevron decision was initially seen as a win for polluting industries. The Clean Air Act mandates that new stationary sources of pollution go through an agency review, but it fails to define what exactly a source is. In the early 1980s, Reaganâs EPAâheaded by Anne Gorsuch, the mother of current Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuchâexpanded the definition of source to mean an entire factory or complex. This significantly cut down on red tape for polluting industries, which previously had to go through government approval processes to add individual smokestacks to larger facilities. The National Resources Defense Council sued the EPA and won; Chevron interfered and took the case to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 8â0 to reverse the lower courtâs decision and handed a victory to the oil giantâand the EPA.
The doctrine established by the case was also seen as a good tool for corporate life. Industries rely on consistent federal guidelines to build their business models. Taking the specifics of regulations out of the courts and putting them into the hands of agencies provided stability for companies that needed to plan ahead.
âAs the deference doctrine became known law, everybody just came to rely on it,â Blanchard said. âThey may not like an agencyâs decision on something, but they were able to rely on the fact, like, OK, at least we can trust the process.â
Subsequent administrations passed much stronger environmental regulations using the Chevron doctrine as a basis. The EPA, especially under Democratic presidents, increasingly came to be seen as an onerous, antibusiness body by industrial interests and ultraconservative figureheads alike. Even Antonin Scalia, who for most of his career was a champion of Chevron, showed signs of tiring of the doctrine in his later years.
+ There are no comments
Add yours