Forty Years of Regulatory Protection, Gone Overnight
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered one of its most consequential—and least understood—rulings in decades. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court’s conservative supermajority overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old principle that governed how courts review federal regulations.
The case involved fishing companies challenging a rule requiring them to pay for federal observers on their boats. But the stakes were infinitely larger than fishing regulations.
By eliminating Chevron deference, the Court stripped regulatory agencies like the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and dozens of others of their authority to interpret the laws they enforce. In its place, the Court handed that power to federal judges—most of whom have no scientific, medical, or technical expertise whatsoever.
This wasn’t a modest legal adjustment. It was a power grab that fundamentally restructured the American regulatory system and opened the door to decades of litigation challenging every environmental protection, workplace safety rule, and public health regulation in existence.
What Was Chevron Deference?
The Chevron doctrine comes from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision established a simple, practical framework: when Congress passes a law that contains ambiguities or technical gaps, and a regulatory agency fills those gaps with a reasonable interpretation, courts should defer to the agency’s expertise.
The logic was straightforward. Congress can’t possibly write laws that address every technical detail about air quality standards, pharmaceutical safety protocols, or workplace exposure limits. That’s why Congress creates expert agencies—the EPA, FDA, OSHA—staffed with scientists, doctors, and specialists who understand these complex issues.
Under Chevron, courts applied a two-step test:
- Has Congress directly spoken to the precise question at issue? If yes, follow Congress’s intent.
- If the statute is ambiguous or silent, does the agency’s interpretation seem reasonable? If yes, defer to the agency.
This framework allowed agencies to adapt regulations to new technologies, emerging science, and changing circumstances without requiring Congress to pass new legislation every time circumstances changed.
For 40 years, Chevron deference was a cornerstone of administrative law, allowing expert agencies to protect public health, workplace safety, environmental quality, and consumer rights.
How the Court Killed It
The fishing companies in Loper Bright challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service rule requiring them to pay for federal observers on their vessels. Rather than narrowly deciding whether this specific rule was valid, the Court used the case to eliminate Chevron entirely.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 majority opinion, joined by the five other conservative justices. The decision held that Chevron conflicted with the Administrative Procedure Act because “it remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”
In other words: judges, not expert agencies, will now determine what ambiguous statutes mean.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a scathing dissent, warning that the decision would create regulatory chaos and substitute judicial policymaking for expert agency judgment. She noted that Congress deliberately delegates authority to agencies precisely because they have expertise courts lack.
The Court dismissed 40 years of precedent—precedent that had been cited in over 18,000 federal court decisions—and fundamentally rewrote how American regulatory law works.
Why This Is Catastrophic
The immediate consequence of Loper Bright is an explosion of litigation. Anyone who doesn’t like a federal regulation can now bring it before a court, arguing that the agency interpreted the law incorrectly.
Consider the real-world impacts:
Environmental protection: The EPA sets complex air quality standards, water pollution limits, and climate regulations based on scientific research. Under Chevron, courts deferred to EPA scientists’ interpretation of statutes like the Clean Air Act. Now, federal judges—most with no environmental science background—will second-guess those technical determinations.
Food and drug safety: The FDA interprets ambiguous statutory language about what constitutes “safe and effective” drugs, medical devices, and food additives. While drug approval standards may remain intact, countless other FDA interpretations are now vulnerable to challenge.
Workplace safety: OSHA sets exposure limits for toxic chemicals, machinery safety standards, and workplace health requirements. These highly technical rules often interpret broadly written statutes. All are now open to litigation.
Financial regulation: The SEC, CFPB, and other financial regulators interpret complex statutes governing securities, consumer protection, and banking. Every interpretation is now subject to judicial override.
As a former EPA regional counsel warned, if agencies have to litigate every enforcement action rather than issuing administrative orders, “the enforcement program is going to collapse.”
Judges Replacing Scientists
The most absurd aspect of Loper Bright is who now makes these technical decisions: federal judges with no relevant expertise.
When the EPA sets an air quality standard based on peer-reviewed epidemiological studies about particulate matter’s health effects, that determination will now be reviewed by judges who may have never taken a science class beyond high school.
When the FDA interprets a statute about what safety testing is required for a new medical device, federal judges—not medical experts—get the final say.
When OSHA sets exposure limits for a carcinogenic chemical based on toxicological research, judges with law degrees will override scientists with PhDs in public health.
As experts note, “the idea behind such deference is that expert agencies, accountable to an elected president, are better suited than federal judges to make the policy choices that Congress left open.”
Loper Bright flips this on its head, empowering unelected judges to substitute their judgment for expert agencies on highly technical matters.
Uncertainty, Instability, and Regulatory Chaos
The decision creates uncertainty and instability across the entire regulatory system.
Regulations that have been in place for decades are now subject to challenge. Industries can forum-shop for friendly judges to strike down rules they don’t like. Agencies will hesitate to issue needed regulations for fear of endless litigation.
Courts will likely experience an initial spike in litigation as parties who previously declined to sue based on Chevron deference now reevaluate their odds of successfully challenging agency interpretations.
Different courts may reach different conclusions about what the same statute means, creating a patchwork of inconsistent rules across jurisdictions. What’s legal in one federal circuit may be illegal in another.
The Supreme Court has knocked out a core pillar of American administrative law and created a real risk of regulatory chaos across environmental protection, health care, labor standards, land use, and corporate reporting.
Who Benefits? Corporate Interests.
The push to eliminate Chevron didn’t come from ordinary Americans concerned about overregulation. It came from corporate interests and conservative legal groups who spent decades building the case against it.
Eliminating Chevron is a dream come true for industries that don’t want to comply with environmental regulations, workplace safety rules, or consumer protections. Now they can tie up every rule in litigation, forum-shop for sympathetic judges, and delay or kill regulations that protect the public but cut into profits.
The fishing companies in Loper Bright were represented by lawyers from Cause of Action Institute, a conservative legal organization funded by dark money. This wasn’t about helping small fishing operations—it was about dismantling the regulatory state.
And it worked.
What This Means for Reform
Loper Bright is a stark reminder of what an ideologically captured Court can do. Six conservative justices, appointed through a process that violated democratic norms, used a case about fishing regulations to restructure American government in ways that will harm public health and safety for generations.
This decision:
- Strips expert agencies of interpretive authority
- Empowers unelected judges to make technical policy decisions
- Opens every regulation to endless litigation
- Creates regulatory uncertainty and instability
- Benefits corporate interests over public protection
And there’s nothing Congress or the President can do to reverse it short of constitutional amendment—unless we reform the Court itself.
This is why Court reform matters. When six justices can unilaterally dismantle 40 years of administrative law, override expert agencies, and empower judges to substitute their judgment for scientists and doctors, the Court has too much unchecked power.
Conclusion: The War on Expertise
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo isn’t a dry legal case about administrative procedure. It’s the Supreme Court declaring war on expertise, stripping power from scientists and specialists, and handing it to judges with no relevant qualifications.
It’s a Court captured by conservative ideology using its power to benefit corporate interests at the expense of public health, environmental protection, workplace safety, and consumer rights.
And it’s a perfect illustration of why the Supreme Court desperately needs reform. Because when six unaccountable justices can reshape American government to favor polluters, unsafe workplaces, and dangerous products over the people those regulations protect, something is fundamentally broken.
The administrative state wasn’t perfect. But it was run by experts accountable to elected officials. Now it will be run by federal judges accountable to no one.
That’s not judicial restraint. That’s a power grab.