The 40-year Chevron ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court, supporting Trump’s deregulatory program

Getty Images

Despite being out of office for over three years, former President Donald Trump recently achieved a significant victory before the Supreme Court.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a landmark decision from 1984, was reversed on Friday, marking a delayed success for Trump’s deregulatory program. The three justices he appointed to the high court joined the conservative majority, which now stands at 6-3.

Join our Channel

Speaking for Court Accountability, a judicial oversight organization, Alex Aronson, a former Democratic staffer in Congress, said, “The ruling marked the end of a multi-decade, billionaire-funded effort to seize and use the Supreme Court’s unelected authority in order to provide enormous profits for business interests at the expense of regular citizens.”

The Republican-led Senate, which was tasked with approving the president’s judicial choices, “become a corporate, ideological conveyor belt for judges” during the Trump administration, he continued.

The National Federation of Independent Business said on Friday that the decision will “even the playing ground in legal disputes between administrative authorities and small enterprises,” which was welcomed by business groups.

Conservative lawyers have long attempted to overturn the Chevron decision, which corporate groups found objectionable because they believed it gave regulators too much power.

Chief Justice John Roberts declared in Friday’s decision that the initial ruling, which said courts should defer to federal agencies when interpreting unclear statutes, was “fundamentally misguided.”

Chevron’s assumption is incorrect, perhaps most fundamentally, because agencies lack the unique expertise to resolve statutory ambiguities. Judges do, he continued.

At a conservative political gathering in 2018, Trump’s White House counsel Don McGahn famously declared that the president’s judicial picks and the effort to roll back regulations “are the flip side of the same coin.”

He used the recently nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch as an illustration of the kind of nominee the administration was seeking. Gorsuch had penned a harsh opinion advocating that Chevron be overturned, which was one of the things that made him appealing to McGahn and other individuals involved in his confirmation in 2017.

Gorsuch dutifully agreed with Robert’s majority view on Friday, as did Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two other Trump appointees.

After being back in private practice with the Jones Day legal firm, McGahn did not reply to a request for comment regarding the ruling on Friday. Neither did the Trump campaign reply.

Regarding another deregulatory matter, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s authority to establish workplace safety regulations is being threatened by a petition filed by McGahn and his Jones Day associates. The Supreme Court may take up this case in the coming days.

Along with hatred for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which protected abortion rights, overturning Chevron became “a kind of litmus test” for conservatives choosing judges, according to attorney Sean Donahue, who frequently defends environmental organizations.

One critique of the most recent decision is that the court is taking authority away from government agencies, a sentiment that liberal Justice Elena Kagan expressed in her dissenting opinion.

A judicial hubris rule supersedes a rule of judicial humility. Too frequently in recent years, this court has appropriated the decision-making powers that Congress delegated to agencies, according to Kagan.

Congressmen who identify as Democrats also voiced their opinions. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, said that the decision “puts corporate greed ahead of the welfare, security, and well-being of Americans.”

The court’s decision to weaken the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority, which was made in a 6-3 decision based on ideological differences, had provoked an equally forceful dissent from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor the day before.

On the left, there is concern that the Chevron decision may prevent agencies from addressing important concerns like climate change because judges will continuously question their judgment.

It is unclear if the decision would have such a significant effect because some analysts believe judges will typically continue to pay careful regard to the advice of agency experts.

The decision effectively put an end to a theory that granted agencies excessive authority to determine the boundaries of their own authority, according to Thomas Berry, a researcher at the libertarian Cato Institute.

He went on, “Turning over Unlike the dissenters, Chevron will not grant judges a novel authority to decide policy matters.”

Leave a comment