On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a monumental decision in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Loper) case that has overturned a forty-year-old approach of how many regulations were developed and enforced. The Court held that federal agencies were no longer granted wide discretion to interpret the laws that Congress passes and which the agencies are directed to enforce. The previous discretion was reliant on a Supreme Court decision in 1984 called Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (Chevron), which has now been overturned by the Loper decision.
Previously, when federal agencies were sued to challenge a regulation, courts had to work within the Chevron decision framework that required them to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the laws. The Chevron deference applied if the agency’s interpretation was a permissible construction of the statute, and Congress had not addressed the specific issue that was in question. There have been countless regulations that have been developed and upheld under the Chevron deference framework.
However, last month the Supreme Court decided the Loper case and held that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1948, and the Chevron deference never were “squared”, and as a result, the deference cannot be upheld as it has been applied, where ambiguous statutes are not implicit delegation of authority for federal agencies. The Loper decision reclaims the act of statutory interpretation back to the federal courts under the framework of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Supreme Court specifically stated in the Loper decision that it is not calling into question cases that were previously decided using Chevron deference. This means that earlier federal court decisions, not just those from the Supreme Court, are not automatically deemed to have been wrongly decided.
The challenges to Chevron deference come from litigants that are challenging how a federal regulation was developed and how those regulations are being enforced. This usually happens because an agency is seen to be overstepping the boundaries of the legislation that the regulation was created to support. For the printing industry, relevant challenges were in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation and enforcement of air and water quality standards and waste management requirements, Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations and enforcement of health and safety standards, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation and enforcement of employment laws.
The effect of the Loper decision will be evaluated in the long term, but in the short-term, federal regulatory agencies will be more vulnerable to legal challenges from companies that sue them in federal court opposing how regulations are developed and enforced. PRINTING United Alliance will monitor how this decision is applied in federal court challenges to agency regulation and enforcement and keep our members up to date.
In this article Adriane Harrison, vice president of human relations consulting, PRINTING United Alliance, addresses the United States Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, that overturns a prior Supreme Court decision. More information about federal regulation can be found at the Center for Human Resources Support or reach out to Adriane directly if you have additional questions specific to how these issues may affect your business at: aharrison@printing.org.
To become a member of the Alliance and learn more about how our subject matter experts can assist your company with services and resources such as those mentioned in this article, please contact the Alliance membership team: 888-385-3588 / membership@printing.org.