SCOTUS Overturns The Chevron Deference

The recent SCOTUS decision to strike down the Chevron deference doctrine has been making waves in the Health and Safety world within the United States over the past week. For those who may not know or operate within the United States, in a nutshell, the Chevron deference was established in the 1984 case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council and it essentially required courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes that Congress had tasked the agency with administering. This meant that courts typically upheld an agency's interpretation unless it was unreasonable.

Though it’s been the Modus Operandi for the last 40 years, the Chevron deference wasn’t exactly foolproof in and of itself. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority decision; “the framers of the Constitution anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that the courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgement.” He went on to add that the Chevron deference violated the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, which specifies that courts, and not agencies, are to decide all relevant questions of law arising on review of agency action.

Now, while I understand the concern that some may have, I think it’s important to put politics aside and try to trust that the legal system in the United States both Federal and State-by-State are founded on the principle of fairness and impartiality, as hard as that may be for some.

Suzanne P. Clark, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce writes of the recent overturning that “the SCOTUS’s previous deference rule allowed each new presidential administration to advance their political agendas through flip-flopping regulations and not provide consistent rules of the roles for businesses to navigate, plan, and invest in the future.”

Critics fear that without Chevron deference, judicial decisions may vary and undermine agency expertise, while proponents argue it restores judicial oversight as intended.

In my personal opinion, while the overturning of Chevron deference may introduce some uncertainties, it underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring regulatory clarity and fairness. Judges can now independently interpret ambiguous laws, providing consistent legal guidance and maintaining accountability without compromising safety standards.

From a Canadian observer’s standpoint this all seems a bit weird and somewhat difficult to understand. Jurisdictions like Ontario have always had a different approach to interpreting regulations under our occupational health and safety laws. In Ontario, courts have historically been the final arbiters in interpreting and applying standards under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This essentially means that judges decide the outcome of cases involving alleged violations of workplace safety standards and contraventions to legislation, which is what the striking down of the Chevron deference will essentially result in.

While some may view the elimination of Chevron deference as a setback, it can also be seen as a return to a system where courts play their designed role in ensuring checks and balances. By independently interpreting regulations, judges can apply legal principles more consistently across different cases and ensure that agencies do not overreach their statutory authority while still ensuring that organizations and individuals who do contravene are held accountable.

As a former enforcement officer myself, I’ll tell you that I’ve sat through some trials and cases where I personally believe the wrong decision was made by the court, but that didn’t shake my belief in the system itself. Judicial interpretation may not always go the way we want it to, but it can (and often does) enhance clarity and fairness in the application of regulations. Judges (and Justices of the Peace in Canada), through their decisions, can provide guidance to agencies and stakeholders on how regulations should be understood and enforced, thereby promoting a more predictable legal environment. As an organization that’s good news, not bad news.

While the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference may initially seem disruptive, it aligns with judicial practices in other jurisdictions and in reality aligns with the intended mission of the courts and the entire legal system in and of itself. Courts have always served as the final decision-makers in interpreting regulatory standards under laws such as the OHSA. In my personal opinion, this decision to overturn the deference only works to ensure that legal principles are applied consistently and fairly, benefiting both regulators and regulated entities seeking clarity and consistency in compliance.

Maybe it’s just me, or the exposures and experiences I’ve had, but in my humble Canadian-who-works-with-US-companies-sometimes opinion, this is how it should be.

Safety is malleable and complex. It changes in every workplace and in every setting. Standards and Regulations are always the minimum basic requirements under the law. Organizations with strong safety cultures and programs that care about their people won’t have any reason to slack off or stop caring, and organizations who don’t care aren’t given any more rope with this change. The United States is still a very litigious country, and for the most egregious contraventions that have resulted in deaths or critical injury there is still (and likely always will be) a strong chance of massive lawsuits and/or criminal charges. Allowing judges and courts to interpret laws doesn’t change that. Really all this decision does is puts the power to interpret laws, specifically ambiguous laws, entirely into the hands of the court system.

#Chevron #SCOTUS #OSHA #Safety

?