??Legal Update?? Chevron Deference vs. Auer Deference in Regards to OSHA: Understanding the Impact of Recent Supreme Court Rulings

This will be long, so if you do not like longform legal analysis, leave now! ????

The landscape of regulatory law has been significantly altered by recent Supreme Court rulings, particularly with the revocation of Chevron deference and the scrutiny on Auer deference. Let's break down what these terms mean and explore their implications, especially concerning everyone's favorite regulatory body for the construction industry & more: OSHA.

What is the Chevron Deference?

Chevron deference, established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., mandated that courts defer to a federal agency's interpretation of ambiguous laws that the agency administers, as long as the interpretation is reasonable. This principle allowed agencies significant leeway in interpreting statutes and making regulatory decisions.

And what is this "Auer Deference"?

Auer deference, from the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, requires courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations. This deference is granted as long as the interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.

Recent Developments:

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court recently revoked Chevron deference. This revocation signals a shift towards more judicial oversight of federal agency interpretations, requiring courts to engage in more stringent reviews rather than automatically deferring to the agencies' expertise. While the Supreme Court has not completely overturned Auer deference, its application is under increased scrutiny.

Mead/Skidmore Deference:

In addition to Chevron and Auer, there are two other important types of deference: Mead and Skidmore. The United States v. Mead Corp. (2001) and Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944) decisions provide guidelines for when and how courts should defer to agency interpretations. Under Mead deference, courts defer to agency interpretations that result from formal processes, like notice-and-comment rulemaking. Skidmore deference is more limited, requiring courts to consider an agency's interpretation based on its persuasiveness and consistency rather than its authority.

Current Landscape and OSHA:

Increased Judicial Review: Courts are likely to scrutinize OSHA's interpretations more closely, potentially leading to more litigation and slower implementation of regulations.

State-Level Variations: With 22 fragmented divisions, state-level OSHA agencies may face challenges in maintaining consistent standards if judicial interpretations vary across states.

Regulatory Uncertainty: The balance of power shifts slightly from agencies to the courts, potentially creating uncertainty in the enforcement and development of safety regulations.

Implications for OSHA:

Chevron Deference Revocation: More stringent judicial reviews mean OSHA may face challenges in justifying its interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Auer Deference Scrutiny: Increased scrutiny of Auer deference could limit OSHA's ability to interpret its own regulations with minimal court interference.

Mead/Skidmore Influence: Depending on the process followed by OSHA to interpret and enforce regulations, different levels of judicial deference may apply, adding complexity to how OSHA's decisions are received and challenged in courts.

Conclusion:

The revocation of Chevron deference and the evolving application of Auer, Mead, and Skidmore deference's mark a significant shift in the regulatory landscape. For OSHA, this means heightened judicial scrutiny and potential challenges in maintaining uniform safety standards across different states. As these legal principles continue to evolve, the impact on workplace safety regulations will be closely monitored.

???????♂???♀?

#LegalUpdate #WorkplaceSafety #OSHA #RegulatoryLaw #SupremeCourt #AuerDeference #ChevronDeference #MeadDeference #SkidmoreDeference #Construction #Infrastructure