What just happened?
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, that could significantly scale back the authority and power of federal agencies. The case has the potential to overturn or restrict the legal standard known as “Chevron deference,” which has had wide-ranging effects on administrative law—and could have important implications for religious liberty.
What is ‘Chevron deference’?
Chevron deference is a legal doctrine that affects legal interpretations, particularly in the realm of administrative law. The doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The Chevron doctrine consists of a two-step analysis. The court must first determine whether the statute (a written law passed by Congress) in question is clear and unambiguous. If the statute’s meaning is clear, the court must apply the law as written and the agency’s interpretation is irrelevant. However, if the court finds the statute to be ambiguous, it must then determine whether the agency’s interpretation of the statute is reasonable. If the agency’s interpretation is deemed reasonable, the court must defer to that interpretation, even if the court might have reached a different conclusion.
What was the ‘Chevron’ case about?
The Clean Air Act, which regulates air pollution at the national level, includes a requirement that states establish a permit program regulating “new or modified major stationary sources” of air pollution. The Carter administration defined “stationary source” as any device in a manufacturing plant that produced pollution. But after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, his EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)—which was headed at the time by Justice Gorsuch’s mother, Anne M. Gorsuch—said that “source” meant the entire plant.
The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged that redefinition in federal court and won. The company Chevron, which was affected, appealed and the case went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in 1984 that when Congress passed a law that didn’t have a clear meaning, the courts should defer to reasonable interpretations by the federal agency applying the law. The Court said, “The EPA’s interpretation of the statute here represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests, and is entitled to deference.” This standard has since been referred to as Chevron deference.
What are the arguments for and against Chevron deference?
Some of the arguments made in favor of Chevron deference include the following:
- Appeal to expertise: The world is complicated, which complicates the application of regulations. Federal administrative agencies are presumably staffed with experts who possess specialized knowledge in their respective fields and therefore are in a better position to know how to interpret and apply regulations. In contrast, most courts often lack the same level of expertise necessary to make adequate interpretations. Chevron deference presumably acknowledges this reality and allows agencies to fill in the gaps left by Congress in a way that’s consistent with their expertise.
- Flexibility: Chevron deference provides federal agencies with the flexibility to adapt their interpretations and regulations as conditions within society change. This flexibility allows them to respond to new scientific discoveries, technological advancements, and evolving social norms more effectively than if the courts were to interpret the statutes without deference.
- Political accountability: Administrative agencies are part of the executive branch and are therefore more directly accountable to the president, who is in turn accountable to the electorate, than are federal judges. Chevron deference recognizes that agencies, as part of the political process, are better suited to make policy choices than unelected judges.
- Consistency and predictability: By deferring to agency interpretations, courts can promote consistency in the application of federal regulations. This helps create a more predictable legal environment, which is beneficial for individuals, businesses, and other stakeholders.
Some of the arguments made against Chevron deference include the following:
- Separation of powers: Critics argue that Chevron deference undermines the separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to encroach on the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law. Under the Constitution, the role of interpreting statutes falls to the courts. By deferring to agencies, courts may inadvertently be abdicating their responsibility to ensure laws are interpreted and applied according to the Constitution and legislative intent.
- Concentration of power: Chevron deference effectively concentrates legislative, executive, and judicial power within administrative agencies. This concentration of power has often led to a lack of checks and balances, making agencies less accountable for their actions. Critics argue agencies have exploited Chevron deference to expand their authority, leading to bureaucratic overreach and abuses of power.
- Giving power to unelected bureaucrats: A central concern is that Chevron deference has empowered unelected bureaucrats to make policy decisions that should be reserved for Congress or the courts. As part of the executive branch, federal agencies are subject to political pressures that influence their decision making. By deferring to agencies, courts could allow unelected officials to shape policy without direct accountability to the electorate.
- Arbitrary decision making: Another concern raised by critics is that Chevron deference has lead to arbitrary decision making by federal agencies, as their interpretations change with each new administration. This lack of stability has created uncertainty for individuals, businesses, and other stakeholders affected by these regulations. Courts may be better positioned to provide a more stable and neutral interpretation of the law.
Why should Christians care about Chevron deference?
Whether persuaded by the arguments for or against this legal doctrine, Christians should be aware of how Chevron deference can lead to negative outcomes for religious people, particularly when federal agencies interpret and enforce statutes involving religious practices or beliefs. By deferring to agencies’ interpretations, courts might uphold regulatory actions that undermine religious freedom.
For example, the Affordable Care Act required most employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception at no additional cost to their employees. While the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) created some exemptions and accommodations for religious employers, the HHS’s interpretations were subject to Chevron deference. This deference led courts to uphold the agency’s interpretation, even though the mandate and its accommodations still infringed upon the beliefs of religious employers.
Another example is the control federal agencies can have over religious employers, such as churches and religious schools. For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for interpreting and enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. Chevron deference can affect religious liberty when the EEOC interprets the statute in a way that limits a religious organization’s ability to make employment decisions consistent with their religious beliefs.
Such threats, whether in the past or in the future, are a primary justification for asking the Supreme Court to carefully examine the implications of Chevron deference on religious liberty and other fundamental rights.