The In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, upending a framework of federal power that has been in place for 40 years. Some states and business groups, including the mining industry, believe that the 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, allowed regulators motivated by a political agenda rather than one based on science or fact to push the limits of their power.

In general, the Chevron doctrine held that, when a statute was vague, judges must defer to regulators because they are the experts. Today many of the department heads overseeing agencies are political appointees with little or no expertise. As each new presidential administration advanced its political agenda, it created a 4- or 8-year ping-pong cycle for regulations. Those inconsistent policies prevent mining companies that permit, design, and build 20- to 30-year mining projects to plan and invest for the future.

In a way, this has come about full circle. Conservatives embraced the Chevron decision at the time, which required left-leaning federal judges to defer to Reagan administration policies. With the U.S. Congress in gridlock, Democratic administrations more recently advanced their agendas through regulatory rulemakings. The Chevron deference prevented federal judges from second-guessing the application of ambiguous provisions except when they were completely unreasonable. One recent example would be the Environmental Protection Agency’s broad interpretation of the Clean Water Act to include all waters of the U.S.

One could also argue that the Chevron deference allowed the U.S. Congress to become lazy. Instead of writing and passing precise legislation, they crafted vague laws with loopholes that special interest groups exploited. Lower courts began to rely on the Chevron deference and that created a cottage industry for lawyers bringing cases based on it.

Chief Justice Roberts emphasized in his opinion that rolling it back would provide more certainty because judges will rule according to the best interpretation of the law, not simply a reasonable one.

The rollback of the Chevron deference should limit the overreach of unelected bureaucrats and reign in law firms working on behalf of special interest groups. The ruling also gives parties unhappy with agency decisions more opportunities to overturn regulations by convincing federal courts that those administrators exceeded their authority. It could shorten permitting times for projects by reducing frivolous lawsuits brought by special interest groups. Moving forward, judges will need to interpret the law impartially without deferring to the agencies.

Steve Fiscor, Publisher & Editor-in-Chief, E&MJ