On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a highly-anticipated decision in the twin cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, which will now make it more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules and regulations that aim to carry out statutory mandates of Congress. The 6-3 decision overrules the 1984 decision Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the 40-year precedent more commonly known as “Chevron deference.” This decision is the culmination of several years of building criticism that argued that Chevron allowed executive branch officials—not legislators—to exert quasi-legislative control over policy decisions.
Chevron required courts to defer to administrative agency interpretations of a law when the statute itself was ambiguous, so long as the agency’s interpretation was “permissible.” Essentially, Chevron relied upon “agency expertise” in implementing everything from health and safety regulations to environmental and financial laws, to even labor and employment laws.
In overruling Chevron, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Chevron “is misguided” because it “requires a court to ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the [Administrative Procedures Act].” Moreover, the Chief Justice reasoned that federal agencies, while having expertise in the subject matter they administer, “have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” Chevron “undermine[d] core rule-of-law values ranging from the promise of fair notice to the promise of a fair hearing.” Accordingly, the Court held that “Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires.”
What does this ruling mean moving forward in the safety and health field? Notably, both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued new rules in the previous year. OSHA issued a broad electronic recordkeeping rule which updated the list of “high-hazard” industries and imposed new recordkeeping requirements for some employers, as well as a walkthrough rule allowing union representatives to accompany inspectors during facility walkarounds. MSHA, meanwhile, recently released a new rule addressing respirable crystalline silica exposure that imposes new benchmarks for airborne particulates and requires certain operators to establish medical surveillance programs.
These rules, and more, are likely to face swift legal challenges, which could lead to a period of regulatory instability. Under the new standard announced by the Supreme Court, reviewing courts are no longer required to defer to the agency’s interpretations. This could lead courts to more easily strike down rules and regulations that the reviewing court views as exceeding the agency’s authorities.
One thing is certain: The administrative state just changed in a major way. Should you have any questions on this decision, or anything else in the workplace safety and health field, please contact a member of the Jackson Kelly Safety Team today.