The conservative-leaning US Supreme Court has curbed the discretionary powers of federal agencies, reversing a 1984 judicial precedent.
The precedent, known as the ‘Chevron doctrine,’ granted federal agencies the final say in their areas of expertise, including in areas such as the environment, social protection and consumer affairs. It compelled federal courts to adhere to the ‘reasonable’ interpretation of these agencies in case of ambiguities or legislative silence.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the majority of six conservative justices, wrote that courts must exercise their independent judgment to decide if an agency has acted according to the law’s authority, and cannot rely on the agency’s interpretation of the law just because it is ambiguous.
“Chevron is overruled,” he continued.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan, a progressive, objected that Chevron doctrine has become a pillar of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds - on air and water purity, food and drug safety, and the honesty of financial markets, to mention a few.
Critics of the doctrine argued that the interpretation of laws is a function of the judiciary, not of the federal agencies, which are part of the executive branch.
Ironically, this doctrine had initially represented a victory for the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, which had accused progressive judges of burying businesses under exorbitant regulations.
