It’s not often that a Supreme Court decision makes waves in the transportation industry. The most recent court session however, may represent a pebble tossed in a pond that could ultimately build into a wave worthy of what we saw in the Olympic Gold Medal surfing competition. The decision gaining the most attention is what’s been referred to as the “Loper Bright” case. While it deals mostly with seldom-seen aspects of the federal bureaucracy, it could have far reaching impacts for many regulated industries, including transportation.
What happened
On June 28, 2024, the court released a 6-3 partisan-line decision that surprised many court watchers. After 40 years, the long-held “Chevron Doctrine” was rejected. This principle, in place since 1984, held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of sometimes ambiguous laws or statutes. This decision could represent a fundamental change in how rules and regulations are developed and how and when an agency is authorized to issue them.
What to know about the Chevron Doctrine
According to the Congressional Research Service, over the last 40 years, the federal court system has evoked the Chevron Doctrine more than 18,000 times in siding with, or showing “deference” to, federal agencies being challenged by stakeholders protesting agency action. Interestingly, the doctrine was created in response to a case brought by Chevron Corp in support of rules created by the EPA. Over the years, however, some have interpreted the doctrine as granting too much power to executive agencies to interpret congressional intent, a power typically reserved for the judicial branch. The doctrine did this by creating a two-part test to determine if an agency appropriately interpreted congressional intent.
Step one instructs the courts to determine if Congress directly addressed the precise question at issue. If a statute is unambiguous about the issue, the court must interpret the law as defined by Congress. If ambiguity is present, then the court must proceed to step two, which asks if the agency made “reasonable” interpretations of the statute. If so, the courts should acquiesce or defer to the agency and not substitute their own interpretation.
Impacts of the Supreme Court ruling
Most transportation industry groups have applauded the court’s decision as a reining in of administrative overreach – predicting it will help to rationalize the rulemaking process. Meanwhile, industry practitioners have raised questions about how and when they might feel the impact of this ruling, and what specific rules, regulations, or policy decisions could be on the chopping block.
While the impact of this ruling will undoubtedly be significant, it will not be immediate. That’s because, for the most part, the ruling is prospective and will have the biggest impacts going forward. The U.S. Supreme Court did not instruct federal judges or administrative agencies to conduct a thorough review of the 18,000 decisions that relied, at least in part, on Chevron.
It will change the playbook that rulemakers use to ensure their actions stand up to judicial scrutiny. What’s likely to change more immediately is the way legislators and regulators craft laws and rules, and how they’re litigated in court actions.
For its part, when crafting legislation, Congress will need to be more careful and explicit about what and how they’re directing regulators to address an issue. That could mean hiring more staff to help them more fully understand the complex problems they’re looking to solve and draft more specific legislation, outlining the authorities being granted and specific solutions envisioned.
Regulators, meanwhile, will need to be more deliberate in dotting every “I” and crossing every “T”. Now under the greatest scrutiny, they’ll need to explain their justifications for an agency action, making sure to apply statutes consistently across the board and demonstrate why their interpretations are necessary, reasonable, and valid.
It is in the best interest of Congress and regulators to adapt in this way because in the future, the courts will be playing a far more significant role in interpreting statutes. Preparing for this additional scrutiny will be key if regulations are to survive legal challenges.
Unfortunately, this ruling may further slow the already glacial pace at which statutes and rules are developed and implemented. Though frustrating for those advocating for a specific change, this more deliberate process should take some of the political winds out of the rulemaking process, and likely will reduce the regulatory flip- flopping we sometimes see from administration to administration.
For those hoping that hours of service, electronic logging devices, medical qualifications or other rules will quickly be rescinded, don’t hold your breath. It will take a long time to sort out the winners and the losers. And on the topic of driver safety, congressional intent has been pretty clear to date.
For more on the impacts of the SCOTUS ruling, listen to Scopelitis Transportation Consulting’s podcast on the issue.
Editor’s note: Scopelitis Transportation Consulting is a Motive contractor.
