The Fine Print: Chevron Deference and the Future of Federal Power

Welcome to my monthly opinion column, The Fine Print, where I dive into a law, policy, or court case and break down how it actually affects our world today, both nationally and locally. From Supreme Court rulings to Congressional legislation, I connect the dots between legal decisions and real life. As a local high school student passionate about law and current events, I’m here to make sense of the legal world, one case at a time.

Just over a year ago, on June 28th, 2024, a long-recognized legal doctrine known as Chevron deference was overturned by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Public reception was mixed, with many seeing a victory for judicial oversight, while others cited Chevron’s 40 decades of influence in case law, and expressed concern for the reduced power of federal agencies. However, in light of recent trends that have seen federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Education, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and many others greatly diminished under the Trump administration, the loss of Chevron may not be as dire as it once seemed.

Chevron deference was established as a legal doctrine in 1984, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.. From the era of FDR’s New Deal onwards, federal agencies have played critical roles in carrying out and enforcing Congressional legislation, and even interpreting that legislation in the face of ambiguity. Critics worried that this represented overreach by the executive branch of government, as the Constitution granted the judiciary (federal courts) the sole authority to interpret laws. But federal agencies such as the EPA are generally composed of employees from a mix of legislative, research, and scientific backgrounds, who have the combined expertise needed to accurately and effectively tackle complex statutes involving highly technical policy issues (unlike federal judges, who likely lack that technical understanding). As a result, when the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the EPA’s interpretation of a definition within the Clean Air Act in 1984, the Supreme Court sided with the EPA, finding that if a statute is ambiguous, courts owe deference to the agency’s reasonable interpretation. This principle became known as “Chevron deference,” after the major oil company involved in the case, and went on to influence how courts reviewed agency actions for decades.

Then, last year, Chevron was taken to task in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case involved a fishing company’s challenge against a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulation requiring them to pay for government-mandated observers on their vessels. Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that federal agencies should be granted full authority to fill in the gaps in ambiguous statutes, significantly limiting the scope of Chevron deference and allowing courts to “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” according to Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion. As reported by The New York Times, the outcome aligned with a larger trend that had seen the Supreme Court overturning major precedents in quick succession, from abortion to affirmative action. However, this decision went a step further, as it directly concerned the role of courts in laying down the law, even in situations where they lack the expertise necessary to respect Congressional intent. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, “a rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”

But in the year 2025, federal agencies are far from what they used to be, a status owed to the Trump administration’s commitment to deregulation rather than the loss of Chevron deference. The EPA of 1984 is a far cry from the EPA of today—which no longer holds any information about or mention of climate change on its official website—except that EPA staffing is being cut to levels similar to the 1980s, in the name of “[operating] as efficiently and effectively as possible.” The changes put Chevron’s overturning in a new light, since last year’s decision could have the unintended effect of actually bolstering legal challenges against new, unfair changes and developments related to legal statutes. Moreover, the shift away from Chevron deference may have been a timely shift away from federal agencies in general, or more specifically, the practice of entrusting them with the authority to make positive change a reality.

The drastic changes being made to federal agencies under the Trump administration should continue to be challenged in court, and the loss of Chevron may even spur those efforts forward. But at the end of the day, courts don’t have the power to take action against issues like the climate crisis themselves, and if federal agencies will no longer do the important work, we must take that responsibility into our own hands. It now falls to states and communities like West Windsor to pick up the slack, and overall, NJ has been doing well.

To focus on environmental justice in particular, New Jersey is recognized as a national leader when it comes to climate action, ranking #8 in energy efficiency programming and continuing to show significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In West Windsor, while debates over warehouse construction continue, resident activists are making strides in the right direction. 

Sunrise Movement Mercer County, a local chapter of a national organization dedicated to environmental action, and a group I am a part of, has made progress towards installing a sidewalk on Millstone Road, near High School North, with support from town council. Numerous other local groups, such as the West Windsor Bicycle and Pedestrian Alliance, have also helped make this community more walkable (and bike-able), allowing for a much-needed reduction in transportation emissions. And at every town council meeting, residents of all ages don’t hesitate to put their two-cents in, whether in regards to flooding problems or traffic regulations.

The fact remains that our town is openly committed to a cleaner, healthier environment, and must continue to work together with residents, community groups, and town council to achieve that goal. Yes, the loss of Chevron deference should continue to aid efforts to challenge the ineffectiveness (and potential for actual harm) caused by recent changes and cuts to our federal agencies. And yes, it remains true that the work of other agencies, such as USAID, which focused on international development, cannot be directly replaced. But the story of Chevron tells us that we can no longer rely on the federal government to take action on our behalf. 

Get involved. Whether it means donating to credible charities, writing to our local and state representatives, joining organizations to take action, or protesting outright, the responsibility is now ours.