Many questions have been asked about the fall of Chevron deference, so I will give you the very short explanation

This is worth understanding so bear with me

Congress passes laws, but the laws are not absolutely explicit about everything.

Most often the laws are general, and the federal agencies are expected to provide the specifics, in the rules and regulations they will then issue, as to how the laws will be implemented.

The check on the agencies is the courts. The “Chevron deference” doctrine, which is based on a 1984 Supreme Court decision (Chevron v NRDC), instructed the courts to defer to agency decisions, on the implied basis that agency experts were unbiased and superior to plaintiff experts.

The result was to give federal agencies a great deal of power and plaintiffs and courts less power. And 40 years on, the agencies are huge and captured and they appear to be making a lot of the real law in the rules and regs they issue.

The NRDC, which won the initial case, has opined on the alternate dangers in overturning Chevron.

In my view, the issue is whether you prefer agencies to have more power or the courts (and plaintiffs) to have more. Today, the agencies have been captured so I prefer to take away their power. But someday if they can be reined in to work for the public, I might wish they had more.

I personally think that Congress needs more lawyers so they can craft the laws better, and so they don’t rely on lobbyists writing so many of the laws. I will cover this in another post hopefully later today.