In a landmark decision, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch played a crucial role in overturning a long-standing legal doctrine that shaped federal regulatory authority for decades.
Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch overturned the Chevron precedent, a victory his mother, EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, helped create in the 1980s.
According to USA Today, Gorsuch, along with a majority in the Supreme Court, dismantled the 40-year-old Chevron deference. This legal standard required courts to defer to federal agencies' expertise when laws were ambiguous.
Gorsuch’s pivotal vote ended a precedent ironically established during his mother, Anne Gorsuch, ’s time as Environmental Protection Agency administrator under Ronald Reagan.
Anne Gorsuch's administration was marked by contentious policies and significant criticisms, particularly regarding environmental regulations. Her leadership saw the EPA's power expand significantly, ironically through the same Chevron rule her son would help overturn.
As the head of the EPA in the 1980s, Anne Gorsuch was a polarizing figure. Her tenure was marred by accusations of leniency towards polluters and internal disputes, leading to several high-profile resignations.
Her efforts culminated in the establishment of the Chevron deference following a unanimous Supreme Court decision, which has since been a cornerstone of environmental regulatory law.
During a heated 1983 Senate hearing, Anne expressed her frustrations with the political opposition she faced:
Nobody can be that wrong, all that much, all the time. I have to finally judge that a great deal of it is political harassment…The thing that makes me very upset is that this type of harassment will probably impede our progress in our goal of cleaning up America.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, highlighted that federal agencies do not possess "special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities," a clear departure from past norms that conferred significant authority on these agencies. Neil Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, declared the ruling a definitive end to the Chevron era, stating, “Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss."
Gorsuch’s critique reflects a broader conservative challenge to the perceived overreach of federal administrative bodies. He advocates instead for a return to traditional jurisprudence, a stance portraying a judicial philosophy deeply rooted in the foundational interpretive rules that guided earlier courts.
The dismissal of Chevron by a 6-3 majority underscores a significant ideological shift within the Supreme Court. It emphasizes an increasing skepticism toward the autonomy of regulatory agencies in interpreting laws, marking a return to a more literal and strict form of statutory interpretation.
Many see this as a more constitutionally appropriate alignment of powers, arguing that agencies have, over time, accrued too much power under the ambiguous cover of legislative statutes. However, others warn that this might lead to inconsistencies in how laws are enforced across different jurisdictions, potentially making regulatory actions less predictable.
This ruling not only overturns a significant aspect of Anne Gorsuch's legacy but also underscores the ideological divisions within the current political and judicial climate in the United States. Neil Gorsuch's role in this landmark decision illustrates how individual justices can influence legal interpretations and the balance of power in significant ways. Moreover, it highlights the enduring impact of judicial decisions on the interpretation and implementation of law across different administrations.
