Ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo disrupts longstanding precedent of agency interpretation 

A recent Supreme Court decision, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturned a longstanding legal precedent that permitted federal agencies to interpret broad congressional mandates according to their expertise. The decision will likely hinder agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency in promulgating regulations that protect the environment. 

In a previous landmark Supreme Court case, Chevron v. NRDC, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts must yield to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers when Congress is not clear on an issue and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. For example, the Chevron case allowed the EPA to define a “stationary source” under the Clean Air Act as an entire polluting facility (rather than an individual polluting machine or building) because the Clean Air Act did not specify what a “stationary source” should be, and the Court found the EPA’s interpretation to be reasonable.

However, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron, holding that the power to interpret ambiguous laws rests primarily with the courts, rather than federal agencies.

This decision likely will have wide-ranging impacts on the environment. Bruce Morrison, General Counsel for Great Rivers Environmental Law Center, commented that, “Generally, EPA’s statutory interpretations have been good for the environment because EPA is mission-driven, and its employees believe in the agency’s mission to protect the environment. This decision that courts no longer have to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute — my sense is that this is not a good outcome for the environment.” 

This decision does not necessarily strip agencies of all power in interpreting the law. In its opinion, the Court supported a previous doctrine that allows agency interpretations to “persuade” judicial decisions, which, while not binding, may allow for agencies to have influence on the Court’s interpretation of ambiguous statues. Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that agencies will still have interpretation power in situations where Congress “expressly delegates” authority to do so.

Following this decision, Great Rivers Environmental Law Center will continue to fight passionately to protect the air, water, and public health of Missouri and Southern Illinois. It may be years until the implications of this decision are fully understood, but Great Rivers Environmental Law Center is committed to following this situation as it develops and communicating with our clients and community partners.

Johnny Yeldham is a senior at Washington University in St. Louis with a double major in Environmental Policy and Spanish along with a minor in Anthropology. As a St. Louis Fellow through WashU’s Gephardt Institute, he is excited to explore how legal action can be used to address environmental injustices within his hometown of St. Louis and the state of Missouri more broadly. In his free time, Johnny loves exploring the beautiful parks and neighborhoods of St. Louis on runs and trying out new recipes with his roommates.