Barry Law Environmental and Earth Law Journal

Clean air is essential for our health, our environment, and our future. Safeguarding it is crucial for creating a thriving world for future generations. In order to protect this vital component, the Clean Air Act was established. “The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources.” [1] The CAA, “passed with bipartisan support, was the first environmental law to give the Federal government a serious regulatory role, formed the structure of the US air pollution control system, and became a model for ensuing environmental laws.” [2] This legislation empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” aimed at safeguarding public health and welfare, as well as regulating emissions of hazardous air pollutants. [3] The freedom which allows the EPA to regulate based on science stems from a Supreme Court case, which was decided back in 1984.

Under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, which involved various environmental organizations contesting an EPA regulation, the United States Supreme Court held that a “government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.” [4] Chevron deference, which is what the rule is referred as, “required courts to analyze an agency’s construction of a statute using a two-step test. In step one, courts determined whether the statutory language at issue was “clear” or “ambiguous.” If it was clear, that language controlled, and an agency could not deviate from it.” [5]

“While the Court’s decision in Chevron was adverse to the environmental groups challenging the [EPA] regulation at issue, over time, the decision and the deference it required courts to afford agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, came to be viewed as supporting the broad exercise of power by the EPA (and other federal agencies), an outcome generally favored by environmental groups.” [6] “Chevron deference, therefore, facilitated major swings in agency policy whenever presidential administrations changed every four or eight years.” [7] This was especially evident in the environmental sector, as each new administration implemented significant revisions to regulations under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. By granting agencies, like the EPA, deference, innovations toward advancing environmental initiatives remained continuous. 

That momentum halted in June of 2024. The United States Supreme Court ruled on Loper Bright Enters v. Raimondo, where a “group of commercial fishermen who regularly participate[d] in the Atlantic herring fishery sued the National Marine Fisheries Service after the Service promulgated a rule that required industry to fund at-sea monitoring programs at an estimated cost of $710 per day.” [8] At issue in Loper Bright was Chevron deference, “which gave federal agencies . . . the power to interpret any statute’s ambiguity that falls under its purview.” [9] The Court “held that the deference to agencies required by Chevron was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act . . . [and] determined that courts, rather than agencies, are best equipped to resolve statutory ambiguities, even those that demand technical subject matter expertise.” [10] In its ruling, the Court threw out one of the most cited cases since it was issued four decades ago.

“Following Loper Bright, courts must now exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority, even when a statute is ambiguous.” [11] To achieve this, federal courts will employ their established statutory interpretation methods to address any ambiguities within the statutes. This judicial review, in the absence of expert guidance, rings many alarm bells. As articulated by Kym Meyer, the litigation director for the Southern Environmental Law Center, “[the Court’s] ruling sidelines the role of agency expertise, and instead shifts power to judges who do not have the expertise of agency staff who live and breathe the science, financial principles, and safety concerns that federal agencies specialize in[.]” [12] Asserted by environmental experts, the “downfall of the Chevron doctrine will give Chevron and other major oil and gas corporations more latitude to slow down and block regulations, allowing them to pollute with near impunity.” [13] Ultimately, this decision indicates that courts will assume a more proactive role in interpreting regulatory statutes, which may diminish the influence of scientific expertise, prolong regulatory processes, and create challenges during a critical period when prompt action is essential to tackle the climate crisis.

While the recent ruling may seem gloom for environmentalists, there are still means for agencies to shape the law in the benefit of scientific innovation. “[A]gencies will continue to shape what the law says and means by: (1) using the executive’s influence to inform the legislative agenda, (2) drafting legislation behind the scenes, and (3) maintaining a technocratic advantage that withstands judicial scrutiny.” [14] While these methods are available, hopefully the courts will one day recognize the overturn of Chevron deference undermines the ability to enforce clean air standards, jeopardizing public health and the environment by allowing political influence to overshadow scientific expertise.

Written by Tatiana Esparza, Associate Editor 2024-2025.