Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
The Loper case began as a challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s interpretation of a federal fishery law. Since 1984, administrative agencies have enjoyed deference from the Court when a statute’s language is ambiguous or if the statute is silent on an issue, provided the agency’s interpretation was reasonable and permissible. This legal doctrine originated in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and became known as Chevron deference.
For the past 40 years, agencies have interpreted statutes and promulgated rules knowing they would be given great deference by the courts. Loper has changed that. The decision in Loper holds that courts must “exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions” and may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
There are tremendous legal implications for the Loper decision in the regulatory space. However, it is important to remember that there was a time before Chevron deference existed. Before Chevron, Congress explicitly delegated authority to administrative agencies. Healthcare laws that pre-date Chevron will likely not be significantly affected by the decision in Loper. Even the Affordable Care Act contains clear delegations of authority to administrative agencies. Although legal challenges may proliferate, the end result may not be drastically different, especially where there are clear statutory delegations of authority.
One final note on the end of Chevron and the Loper decision: Chevron deference ultimately made it easier for Congress to legislate. That has now changed. Laws will once again require clear delegations of authority. Congress could amend the Administrative Procedures Act and enshrine Chevron deference or another variation of deference into law. For now, though, the era of inattentive deferrals of authority is over.
Connecting the Dots
Both cases speak to presidential power and authority. It is easy to forget in the current hyperbolic debate surrounding these decisions that administrative agencies are under the authority of the executive branch. Although much of the media coverage around Trump v. United States has declared the presidency to be equivalent to a king, the Loper decision undercuts that narrative by curtailing the deference the executive branch has enjoyed in the rulemaking process. In the absence of Chevron deference or clear Congressional direction, the administrative agencies will have a much harder time simply filling gaps in legislation and policy. Essentially, we are left with a weakened executive branch, a stronger judicial branch and a formally established presidential immunity standard that had long been assumed.
