The Future of Chevron Doctrine: Potential Implications and Challenges Ahead

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a major decision that could have far-reaching implications for federal regulations and the balance of power between the branches of government. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo et al and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, challenges the long-standing Chevron Doctrine, which allows federal departments and agencies to interpret federal law when statutes are unclear.

During oral arguments on January 17th, plaintiffs raised constitutional claims against the Chevron Doctrine, arguing that it violates Article III by shifting interpretive authority from the courts to the executive branch, violates Article I by allowing agencies to formulate policy, and violates due process by favoring the government in litigation with private citizens. It appeared that a majority of the Court is leaning towards overturning Chevron, raising concerns about the potential impact on previous regulatory challenges and future regulations.

If the Court does overturn Chevron, there is an expectation that the federal judicial branch will be inundated with lawsuits against proposed and final regulations across the government. This could lead to a significant increase in litigation, particularly in areas such as annual Medicare payment rules issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.

One potential solution to the potential chaos that could result from overturning Chevron is the use of negotiated rulemaking. This process involves formal negotiations among interested parties to reach a consensus on proposed rules, potentially speeding up rule development, reducing litigation, and generating more effective regulatory solutions.

The Court is expected to release its decision in June, prior to its summer recess. If Chevron is overturned, stakeholders will need to advocate for more detailed legislation from Congress and actively participate in the regulatory rulemaking process. This includes communicating with agencies before and after proposed rules are published in the Federal Register.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of federal regulations and the balance of power between the branches of government. Stay tuned for updates as the Court deliberates on this important issue.