Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine: a potential threat to worker safety and federal authority
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine may undermine the authority of federal agencies by giving courts more leeway to impose their interpretations of many federal regulations.
The 40-year-old doctrine required courts to defer to federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws within the agencies’ areas of expertise. The agencies, in turn, were answerable to the President and legally required to respond to the public’s comments and concerns.
Following the 6-to-3 ruling, courts could prevent agencies from setting and enforcing regulations. The implications for our health, environment, climate, civil rights, worker safety, and more remain uncertain.
Justice Elena Kagan noted in dissent that “in one fell swoop, the majority today gives exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law,” turning “itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
What is the Chevron doctrine?
The Chevron doctrine resulted from the 1984 Supreme Court landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The case centered around the Clean Air Act, which requires states to establish programs to manage air pollution in areas that do not meet national air quality standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented a regulation allowing states to adopt a “bubble concept” for its air quality management programs. Under this concept, a power plant with multiple pollution-emitting devices could average emissions across those devices to keep the total emissions under a certain limit.
The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged the EPA, arguing that the Clean Air Act requires permits for each individual source of emissions rather than for the plant as a whole. Chevron, a major oil company, supported the EPA’s interpretation.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the EPA while establishing the Chevron doctrine, which gave judicial deference to administrative agencies. Over the past 40 years, the doctrine has allowed agencies to effectively implement and enforce regulations based on their expertise and informed understanding of complex issues.
What happens now?
The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine has raised questions about the future of federal regulatory authority.
Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), pushed by businesses, conservative groups, and Republican attorneys general. The challengers argued that Congress violated the Constitution when the U.S. Department of Labor gave OSHA the authority to regulate workplace safety and fine companies that endanger workers.
On Tuesday, the Biden-Harris administration also announced OSHA’s proposed rule to protect workers from extreme heat. The note of proposed rulemaking for heat injury prevention in outdoor and indoor work settings “is a significant step toward a federal heat standard to protect workers,” OSHA states on its website.
The regulations proposed by OSHA would require employers to develop an injury and illness prevention plan to control heat hazards in the workplace. Employers, for instance, would be required to monitor workers and provide rest areas and water when the heat index reaches 80 degrees or higher.
The U.S. Department of Labor is prioritizing programmed inspections in agricultural industries employing H-2A workers for seasonal labor.
“These workers face unique vulnerabilities, including potential language barriers, less control over their living and working conditions, and possible lack of acclimatization, and are at high risk of hazardous heat exposure,” the agency said in a recent press release.
The announcement follows the heat hazard alert issued by the U.S. Department of Labor last summer. The alert helps ensure employers follow standards while informing workers of their rights as historically high temperatures break records.
The alert states that employers have a “legal and moral responsibility not to assign work in high heat conditions without protections in place for workers.” The Department of Labor also affirmed that OSHA would conduct more inspections in “high-risk industries like construction and agriculture” to protect workers from heat illness.
OSHA has been working on a federal heat standard to protect workers since 2021.
The RESPIRAR project will continue to monitor policy changes to better understand how recent directives could affect protections for farm workers, their housing, and respiratory health.