Photo: Adobe Stock
In a landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a 40-year-old precedent known as Chevron deference.
The original 1984 decision gave administrative agencies broad power to issue and interpret regulations relating to important areas of public policy. Under the authority of Chevron, courts were required to defer to federal agencies in the interpretation of laws passed by Congress.
For decades, conservative critics of the decision have pointed out that it grants an overly broad and unconstitutional level of authority to unelected administrative agencies.
The conservative justices on the court voted unanimously with Chief Justice John Roberts issuing the majority opinion. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the minority of liberal justices on the court, arguing that the decision would give courts greater power than agencies over administrative decisions which involve areas one policy expertise.
Opponents of the precedent set by Chevron emphasize the lack of checks and balances that exist when federal agencies are effectively granted legislative power. The system established by the decision has long been criticized as unconstitutional and inconsistent with America’s founding principles.
Chevron granted federal agencies an immense level of power over national policy, with no accountability to voters since the decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats.
With the overturning of Chevron, courts will resume the role of interpreting laws, rather than deferring to federal agencies. The change will facilitate the overturning of regulations that are found to exceed the authority of federal agencies and could have a significant impact many areas of American life including financial and environmental regulations.