Overruling Chevron Would Cause ‘Doctrinal Upheaval,’ Say 22 Democratic AGs

The Democratic attorneys general of 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, think the Chevron “framework” strikes an “appropriate balance” between confining agencies to parameters set by Congress, and “allowing them to operate effectively within those parameters,” said their U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Friday (docket 22-451).

The Natural Resources Defense Council, the losing party in the 1984 Chevron decision, believes it may win more court cases if Chevron is overruled, said its separate amicus brief. But it thinks SCOTUS nevertheless should “hesitate before overruling Chevron or abandoning its framework now,” said the NRDC’s brief. They were two among a dozen briefs filed in the docket in the span of a few hours Friday, all in support of the government respondents in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and in favor of preserving Chevron deference, not dismantling it or watering it down.

Federal agencies are bound by law to follow Congress’ “unambiguous directions,” said the Democratic AGs’ brief. But it’s “impossible to legislate every detail needed for the implementation and enforcement of a complex statute,” it said. Expert agencies “have the technical knowledge, research capabilities, and on-the-ground experience to fill in the gaps left by the legislature to best accomplish the goals of regulatory programs,” it said.

SCOTUS should resist calls for overruling Chevron because that would cause “doctrinal upheaval” and inject uncertainty into the “regulatory sphere,” said the Democratic AGs’ brief. SCOTUS instead should “reaffirm” the Chevron framework, “while clarifying its proper scope,” it said. It countered the July 24 amicus brief in which the Republican AGs of 16 states urged SCOTUS to jettison Chevron for the “real harm and lasting damage” it has inflicted.

When federal agencies offer fair interpretations of the law to fill statutory gaps left by Congress, Chevron allows states “to rely on those interpretations in developing their implementation plans,” said the Democratic AGs’ brief. Once those plans are approved by the federal agency, Chevron offers states “some reassurance that the implementation process is unlikely to be derailed by a third-party legal challenge,” it said. Overruling Chevron “would undermine these important government programs and increase costs for both states and regulated entities,” it said.

Deferring to agencies’ interpretations of “truly ambiguous statutes” advances “several important values,” said the Democratic AGs’ brief. Chevron deference “respects legislators’ decision to delegate policymaking discretion to politically accountable agencies rather than to courts,” it said. It also acknowledges agencies possess technical expertise that courts don’t, “better positioning them to make key policy determinations,” it said. Since Congress has been legislating with the Chevron framework as its “backdrop” for decades, preserving the doctrine “helps safeguard congressional intent,” it said.

SCOTUS should reject the petitioners’ “invitation to discard the longstanding framework of Chevron,” said the brief. States “have long relied on the stability Chevron provides,” it said. Under the Chevron framework, states “need not guess which reading of a genuinely ambiguous statute a particular court might conclude is best,” it said. They instead have assurance an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute it administers “is likely to be upheld,” it said. That’s conditioned on circumstances “only where the interpretation is truly reasonable and the statute is truly ambiguous,” it said.

NRDC, having been the losing party in the 1984 Chevron decision, “has lost many subsequent cases” that applied the doctrine’s “judicial review framework as well,” said its amicus brief. Those cases provide some insight into what could result if the judicial review framework articulated in Chevron “were now abandoned,” it said.

If lower court judges were instructed to determine what they believe to be the best interpretation of a statute, “it might invite those judges to resume resolving interpretive disputes based on their personal policy preferences,” said NRDC’s brief. Judicial outcomes “would tend to become less uniform and less predictable,” even within a single circuit, as the trio of D.C. Circuit cases that led to Chevron shows, it said.

NRDC is “somewhat reluctant” to make these points, since “groups like ours may win more cases if Chevron were overruled,” said its brief. Reviewing courts frequently defer to agency interpretations “that reduce regulatory burdens and weaken environmental and public health protections,” it said. “NRDC has accordingly lost many cases under Chevron, based on agency deference,” it said.

NRDC nonetheless recognizes “the broader values that Chevron’s judicial review framework serves, and what could be lost without it,” said its brief. “Whatever one thinks of Chevron,” its framework “has provided a background rule on which courts, Congress, agencies, and litigants like us have relied for decades,” it said. NRDC urges SCOTUS “to exercise caution before abandoning it,” it said.