How the Supreme Court's Big Decision to Overturn the Chevron Doctrine Could Impact Agriculture

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, overturned Chevron and handed authority back to Congress and the courts. Overturning the doctrine is a significant ruling that limits federal regulatory power.

The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, had directed courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws.

The decision was split along ideological lines, with the conservative majority voting to overturn Chevron. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called the Chevron framework "unworkable" and said the court was ending "our 40-year misadventure with Chevron deference.”

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal regulations across various sectors, including environmental protection, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. It impacts the power of federal agencies, such as EPA, to issue regulations. The Chevron doctrine previously allowed agencies to interpret vague laws. This change provides opponents a clearer legal path to challenge regulations, potentially forcing agencies to be more cautious in drafting rules.

Environmental regulators, such as EPA, will face tougher judicial challenges. The decision is expected to slow down the regulatory process, requiring more time to craft, weigh comments and finalize rules. Many environmental rules stem from old laws with few modern amendments, adding to the uncertainty.

Mixed Reaction After Decision

Proponents of overturning Chevron argue it will reduce the power of unelected bureaucrats and increase accountability.

Critics warn the decision could lead to legal and administrative chaos, making it harder for agencies to respond to new challenges and implement regulations.

The ag and energy sectors are already asking how this ruling could impact energy and environmental regulations — both existing and new. Biofuel interests are wondering if this will impact the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Given that EPA has more leeway to set RFS levels without the mandates in law, it could. But the RFS levels have been challenged before and the resolution takes a long time, so it really doesn't affect the mandates, i.e., the 2023 standards included 250 million gallons to meet a court remand of the 2016 standards.

Possible Impact on Agriculture Regulations and Farm Bill

USDA and EPA will no longer have the broad authority to interpret ambiguous statutes. This change is expected to limit their ability to create and enforce regulations without explicit congressional authorization. For instance, regulations related to farm subsidies, crop insurance, and environmental practices, including the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, will now face closer judicial scrutiny.

Farm Subsidies and Crop Insurance: Agencies will need clear statutory authority to implement or modify programs related to farm subsidies and crop insurance, which could lead to fewer regulatory changes unless explicitly directed by Congress.

Environmental Practices: Regulations under the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws will be more challenging to enforce if they rely on ambiguous statutory language. This could affect rules aimed at protecting wetlands and managing agricultural runoff.

Animal Welfare Standards: The ruling could impact regulations like those via the Packers & Stockyards Act, which aim to ensure fair competition and treatment in livestock markets.

Support from Agricultural Groups. They argue that it restores a balance of power by ensuring that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose regulations beyond what Congress has explicitly authorized.

Impact on the Farm Bill. The ruling puts pressure on Congress to draft more precise and detailed legislation. This is particularly relevant for the new farm bill, as lawmakers will need to ensure that the statutory language is clear to avoid judicial challenges and ensure effective implementation by federal agencies.

The Decision is Expected to Increase Accountability within the legislative and executive branches. Congress will need to be more explicit in its directives, and federal agencies will be limited to implementing laws as written, without broad interpretative leeway.

Potential for Legal Challenges. With the Chevron deference overturned, there may be an increase in legal challenges to existing and new regulations. Courts will now play a more significant role in interpreting agricultural laws, which could lead to a more stable regulatory environment but also more litigation as stakeholders seek judicial clarification on ambiguous statutes.

Opportunity to Review Prior Cases? The conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) said House committees “have an opportunity to review any regulatory action that was justified by Chevron deference toward agency interpretation.” The RSC views the overturning of Chevron as a way to “reclaim congressional authority” and roll back what they see as executive overreach. The committee’s memo encouraged its members to “scour Biden-era regulatory actions and highlight any that should be considered for judicial review post-Chevron.” This indicates a specific focus on reviewing and potentially challenging regulations implemented during the Biden administration.

EDITOR’S TAKE:

This ruling represents a significant shift in administrative law and is likely to have broad impacts on how federal agencies interpret and implement laws passed by Congress. It may lead to more challenges of agency regulations in court and could potentially slow down or complicate the regulatory process across various sectors of government. Overall, it should be favorable to agriculture. The ag industry has been inundated with rules and regulations dealing with everything from what constitutes waters of the U.S. to oversight of conservation efforts.

The Agricultural Retailers Association, representing crop protection/fertilizer and bio-tech dealers, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling, "For the past 40 years, the Chevron doctrine has provided an opportunity for federal regulatory agencies to expand their regulations beyond the intent of Congress. If Congress was not specific in limiting an agency’s authority in statute, Chevron provided deference to the agency in interpreting its own authorizing statute. This decision from the Supreme Court is important because it will require an agency to have specific statutory authority in order to submit private citizens or businesses to a regulatory requirement.”

In my opinion, this ruling will help relieve some of the financial burden on farmers/ranchers. And, that is good for the truck business!