How SCOTUS’s Chevron Strike-Down Will Hurt Americans—and Democracy

There’s a lot of talk about threats to and the future of American democracy these days, and for good reason. Our expectations for how core government institutions should function are challenged daily. Sometimes this looks scandalous—like when a Supreme Court justice’s wife turns out to have supported a coup—and sometimes it just looks like the grinding, routine dysfunction of Congress. Somewhere in between are the rulings that came down from the Supreme Court at the start of this summer. Although Supreme Court rulings can seem technical, this year’s included sweeping, terrifying blows to the way the federal government works—blows that will impact all of us. 

The Supreme Court decision overturning its 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council precedent in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has thrown the work of every federal regulator into doubt. The original Chevron case established that courts must defer to federal agencies when it comes to interpreting certain laws. In the 40 years between these two cases, what became known as Chevron deference was established as a bedrock administrative law principle. Because members of Congress aren’t technical experts in all the areas that the government regulates, they pass broad and general legislation, letting regulatory agencies then use their expertise to fill in the gaps. 

Chevron deference gave agencies like the FDA—staffed by scientists and pharmacists with specialized knowledge—the ability to shape the implementation, rules, and processes of laws passed by Congress with some space from judicial micromanagement. Its reversal gives courts the ability to insert themselves into the legislative implementation process with new freedom. 

The Loper decision did not come out of nowhere. The Supreme Court has steadily undermined agencies’ power for years as conservative justices have sought to shrink the government’s regulatory footprint. Nor does Loper stand alone this year in advancing this agenda. Other early summer rulings invited new parties to challenge long-standing regulations and saw the court regularly overturning agency rulings. These decisions not only help corporate actors who support—and indeed have paid for—the conservative deregulatory agenda, but they also enhance the court’s own power at the expense of the democratically elected executive branch. 

This comes at a time when the court is facing several ethics scandals, prompting President Joe Biden to propose sweeping changes to enforce accountability, require recusal for conflicts of interest, and limit justices’ terms to 18 years.   

This alliance between the courts and corporations and the disempowerment of agencies threatens to have profound effects on issues that touch all of our lives. Corporations already go venue shopping for courts more likely to let them escape the rules designed to, for example, regulate nuclear waste or protect civil liberties. While the exact implications of the end of Chevron will play out over the next few years, we can already imagine what this means for people in the economy. Among other potential harms, this ruling could make it more difficult for agencies to: 

• Regulate the health insurance industry, for example, by mandating free preventive care services;  
• Quickly respond to evolving industries that are preying on Americans, such as cryptocurrency; 
• Set and enforce wage and labor standards; and
• Enforce rules under the Clean Air and Water Acts, threatening the safety of the air we breathe and the water we drink.  

Each of these effects will have a direct, negative impact on Americans’ lives and, as a result, on the stability of our democracy. A democratic government that can’t reliably ensure and deliver basic necessities—like clean water, safe financial systems, and reasonable access to health care—is not secure. For governments to be understood as legitimate—and for democracies to be understood as worth saving—they need to meet these basic needs. To rebuild confidence in our government and convince people that we have a worthy system, we need to make Congress and the agencies more effective, not less.