Supreme Court's Overruling of Chevron Deference Will Change How Regulations are Written and Interpreted
On June 28, in the Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v.
On June 28, in the Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a doctrine established in 1984 called the “Chevron deference” was overturned and will no longer be used when it comes to courts interpreting the meanings of regulations when there are ambiguities with them. The Chevron deference, named for Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. said that when there are ambiguities in an agency’s regulation, courts must defer to the agency to determine what’s meant by the regulation for that particular item being challenged. With this ruling, courts will now have to independently interpret the regulation and determine what the best meaning of Congress was for that regulation. Courts will get to use multiple sources to determine what the regulation means, not just what the agency who enforces it says it means.
⚡ TL;DR: For 40 years, federal agencies had the final say on what ambiguous regulations meant. Now courts do. This shifts power from EPA/OSHA back to federal courts, which apply statutory language more strictly. New regulations must be clearer and better justified. Existing regulations mostly survive unless challenged. The practical effect: agencies are incentivized to be more aggressive enforcing current rules before courts weaken them.
⚠️ Pain Frame: Regulatory interpretation uncertainty creates compliance liability. If your facility is relying on an EPA guidance document or OSHA interpretation letter to justify a specific procedure, and a court later rules that interpretation was too broad, your compliance position weakens retroactively. The risk is highest for facilities operating in “gray areas” where the regulation is genuinely ambiguous. Even more immediately: agencies responding to this ruling may intensify enforcement of existing regs to establish litigation footing before courts reinterpret them.
The Reasoning for the Overturn
The court found the Chevron deference was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). This is the federal rule for how a regulation is written, how it’s entered into law, and how courts are to review actions by those agencies. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the APA directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference.” He also said the Chevron deference “allows agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so.”
Justice Clarence Thomas also pointed out that the Chevron deference not only was inconsistent with the APA, but it also was inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of power. This ruling keeps the power for interpretation in the hands of the Judicial Branch rather than deferring and giving the executive branch powers not given to it. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “all today’s decision means is that, going forward, federal courts will do exactly as this Court has since 2016, exactly as it did before the mid-1980s, and exactly as it had done since the founding: resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government’s favor.”
Going Forward
The ruling also pointed out that just because a case used Chevron deference in the past, that wasn’t going to be a special justification to use for overturning it. The Chevron deference has been used 18,000 times. However, it’s predicted most regulations, especially those with long standing, will remain intact unless challenged for a different reason. However, we’ll likely see much more dramatic changes in how new regulations are written. Congress will retain the ability to delegate authority to federal agencies but will now need to clearly define the scope of that authority and give explicit directions in new regulations. Broad, vague grants of authority will not be in the agency’s favor going forward. We’re likely to see more clear and detailed statutory language. We may also find that agencies start updating existing regulations to shore up the language in them. Justifications will need to be clearer and need to give both their purpose AND their statutory basis.
In the Immediate Future
As a result of this case, we anticipate agencies may want to flex their authority by trying to assert current regulations. Because current regulations need to be challenged for something other than the Chevron deference, it may be harder to challenge current regs. Another scenario is that agencies may also want to purposely try to get their regulations challenged just so that they know where they stand legally. As a result, we may see more inspections.
For compliance teams, the immediate implication is operational: document the regulatory basis for your procedures carefully. If EPA or OSHA later challenges your compliance position, citing a specific regulation is stronger than relying on an interpretation letter or guidance. Build defensibility into your compliance program now, before regulatory reinterpretation becomes litigation risk.
💰 Dollar Anchor: A regulatory challenge with ambiguous guidance can cost $50,000–$500,000+ in legal fees and remediation. A facility with strong documentation of regulatory compliance saves this exposure. Proactive regulatory audits ($10,000–$25,000) cost far less than defending a position based on outdated agency guidance during a court challenge or enforcement action.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What was Chevron deference and why did it matter?
Chevron deference was a 40-year doctrine established in 1984 that required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations when ambiguities existed. This doctrine was used in approximately 18,000 court decisions and gave agencies substantial authority to determine regulatory meaning without judicial challenge.
Q: How will the Supreme Court’s ruling change EPA and OSHA regulations?
Congress will need to use clearer, more detailed language in new regulations, explicitly defining the scope of agency authority rather than granting broad discretion. Agencies like the EPA and OSHA may need to update existing regulations to strengthen their legal language and provide clearer statutory justifications for compliance requirements.
Q: What should companies do now to prepare for regulatory changes?
Facilities should work with environmental consultants to ensure their compliance programs align with regulations as currently written, and monitor updates to EPA, OSHA, and other agency rules. iSi Environmental can help your organization interpret how these changes affect your specific compliance obligations across air, water, waste, and safety regulations.
Q: Will existing regulations be overturned because of this ruling?
Most long-standing regulations are expected to remain intact unless challenged on grounds other than Chevron deference, though agencies may proactively revise them to strengthen their legal language and reduce vulnerability to future challenges.
We Plug In. You Level Up.
Need help with environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene compliance? Contact iSi Environmental for a same-day quote, or explore our environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene services to see how we can help your facility.