Does a Gas Station Have a Doctrine?

On Friday, June 28th, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a decades-old legal precedent that gave government regulatory agencies the power to interpret vague legislation when crafting regulations. This legal precedent, known as the Chevron doctrine, allowed courts to defer to an agency's and its subject matter experts' interpretation of the law if the statute was ambiguous. Now, judges will make those decisions.

First implemented by the court in 1984, the Chevron doctrine has been cited more than 18,000 times by the courts. Chevron’s intent was to ensure judges deferred to subject matter experts in federal agencies when challenges arose over ambiguous laws. Congress acknowledges it cannot write a “perfect” regulatory statute, and there will always be elements of vagueness and uncertainty that some actor will have to resolve. Historically, Congress preferred that this actor be a subject matter expert from the responsible agency rather than a judge who might not have the same level of expertise.

The consequences of overturning the Chevron doctrine are still uncertain. It is likely to have serious repercussions for federal agencies like HHS and CMS, making it harder for them to create and implement rules without legal challenges. This decision raises the bar for healthcare regulators when implementing laws with undefined terms and opens the door for industry stakeholders to sue if they disagree with an agency's interpretation or believe the judge shares their ideology.

The Supreme Court’s decision could impact patients like me by preventing federal agencies such as CMS from responding quickly to fast-moving issues like artificial intelligence (AI) or COVID-19. It might destabilize programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require regular updates and modifications. For-profit entities could challenge HIPAA, aiming to erode current privacy and data rights laws. The FDA's priorities might shift towards profit indicators instead of ensuring safety and efficacy. Consequently, patients might have to rely on outdated technology, like fax machines, for another generation.

Chevron Doctrine Explained:

Background: The case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) originated from a dispute over the interpretation of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA had issued regulations allowing states to treat all pollution-emitting devices within the same industrial grouping as if they were within a single "bubble." This "bubble concept" meant a company could install or modify equipment without a permit if the total emissions from the plant did not increase. The NRDC challenged this regulation, arguing it was inconsistent with the CAA's requirements.

Key Legal Question: The central question was whether the EPA's interpretation of the term "stationary source" under the CAA was permissible. Specifically, could the EPA define "stationary source" to mean the entire plant rather than individual pollution-emitting devices?

Case History:

• Lower Courts: The NRDC brought the case to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which ruled against the EPA, finding the "bubble concept" inconsistent with the CAA.

• Supreme Court: Chevron U.S.A., Inc., and the EPA appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to address the issue.

Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision. The Court established a two-step framework for reviewing federal agency interpretations of statutes they administer, known as "Chevron deference."

1. Chevron Step One: Determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; the court and the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.

2. Chevron Step Two: If the statute is silent or ambiguous on the specific issue, the question is whether the agency's interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation if it is reasonable.

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court found that the term "stationary source" was ambiguous in the context of the CAA.

• It determined that the EPA's interpretation using the "bubble concept" was a permissible and reasonable construction of the statutory term.

• The decision emphasized the importance of deferring to administrative agencies’ expertise when statutory language is ambiguous.

Significance: The Chevron decision is a foundational case in administrative law, establishing the principle of "Chevron deference." This doctrine guides courts in reviewing federal agencies’ interpretations of statutes, emphasizing judicial deference to agency expertise and discretion in the face of ambiguous legislative language. The decision profoundly impacts the balance of power between the judiciary and administrative agencies and continues to influence regulatory and environmental law.

Big Al’s Political Science Degree:

Our Constitution is founded on the principle of separation of powers. The founding fathers wanted to prevent the establishment of a king, so they ensured that Congress writes the laws, the Executive Branch executes the laws and establishes foreign policy, and the Judiciary settles disputes regarding the meaning and proper enforcement of laws. Despite what the news may suggest, this system relies on a degree of trust because these powers often overlap between branches.

This trust is necessary because our economy, society, and technology are vast, complex, and can change direction rapidly. To prevent a monarchy, Congress was designed to move slowly, debating ideas into a policy framework. It does not have the tools to manage day-to-day operations of such a complex and rapidly changing entity like the economy or technology. Federal agencies, under the President's guidance and in consultation with Congress, are better equipped for day-to-day policy implementation, employing subject matter experts, and collecting institutional knowledge. The Judiciary was not intended to be involved in policymaking.

By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the Supreme Court has effectively made itself and lower courts into policymaking entities. Instead of agencies like CMS or the FDA determining how best to implement AI in patient care, judges will make these decisions. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid may have to wait for judicial approval before assisting those in need. The privacy protections and patient rights provided by HIPAA could be compromised depending on a judge’s political ideology. Ultimately, this decision could mean that outdated technology like fax machines remains in use for sharing important records because Congress is still catching up with modern technology.