Supreme Court reshapes federal agency rulemaking landscape

In a recent government meeting, key discussions centered around two significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2023-2024 term that could impact state regulations and environmental policies.

The first decision addressed the Chevron deference doctrine, a legal principle established in 1984 that required federal courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, overruled this doctrine, asserting that courts must now independently interpret statutes without deferring to agency interpretations. This ruling emerged from two cases involving the National Marine Fisheries Service's requirement for onboard monitors for fishers, which was challenged under the Chevron doctrine. The court criticized Chevron deference as fundamentally misguided, stating it impeded the judicial task of interpreting statutes.

The implications of this ruling are significant for state agencies in Utah, as outlined in House Bill 470, which mandates state agencies to review federal regulations that may be vulnerable to legal challenges under the new judicial approach. Agencies must report potential vulnerabilities to the Attorney General by January 1, 2025. The ruling also allows the Attorney General to challenge federal regulations, although the court noted that previous decisions granting deference to agencies do not automatically provide grounds for challenges.

The second Supreme Court decision discussed was Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which pertains to new ozone standards set to take effect in 2025. The EPA had implemented stricter ozone regulations, requiring states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to comply. However, the EPA rejected plans from 19 states, citing non-compliance with the Clean Air Act's good neighbor provision, which mandates states to account for emissions affecting downwind air quality. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the states, granting a stay on the federal implementation plan due to the EPA's failure to adequately consider state concerns regarding the plan's calculations.

These rulings signal a shift in how federal regulations may be interpreted and challenged, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of federal agency actions and greater involvement from state attorneys general in regulatory matters. The discussions highlighted the evolving landscape of environmental regulation and the legal frameworks that govern agency authority.