Pity the poor media relations person at Chevron charged with monitoring media hits and press mentions about the company. For the past several weeks, and even the past few years, news items about Chevron (the company) have been intermingled with items about the obscure judicial “Chevron doctrine,” and especially since the recent Supreme Court decision, news hits about the Court’s decision have decidedly outnumbered news hits about the corporation. Right now, a simple web search on “Chevron” returns many more hits about the court decision than about the company.
Chevron became associated with the Chevron doctrine in 1984 as a result of a unanimous Supreme Court decision. The 1984 Court decided that, when a regulatory agency found the wording of a law to be unclear or ambiguous, the agency could interpret the ambiguous language, and that courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation.
The dynamic between the courts and the agencies may have been different in 1984, but the result of Chevron deference has been that regulatory agencies have used court deference in ways that expand their scope and reach, with ever more lawmaking power being improperly exercised by agencies that are seldom if ever held accountable by Congress.
The Court’s decision hinged on the principle that it is the judicial branch, not the executive branch, and certainly not appointed bureaucrats, that determines what the law is. In other words, the Court drew a clear separation of powers distinction, which is becoming somewhat of a hallmark of the current Supreme Court.
Ending Chevron deference is a significant constitutional victory for those who believe in limited government and a clear separation of powers. Opponents claim it will result in disruption and uncertainty on the part of regulators.
So be it. The conservative legal movement has been looking for an opportunity to overturn Chevron as a way to begin to rein in the regulatory state, and if the result is that Congress and the agencies must work more closely on the language of legislation—and if it means clarifying legislation needs to be implemented—that’s a good thing.
It also means that, in time, Chevron’s media relations people won’t have to worry so much about irrelevant media hits referencing an obscure and overturned legal precedent.
July 10, 2024