By Kiley Mclean

The Chevron doctrine, (also known as “Chevron deference”), is a key legal principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984, has long shaped how courts interact with federal agencies when interpreting unclear laws. Recently, however, a significant shift occurred when the Supreme Court decided to overturn this doctrine in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This change is poised to have profound impacts across various sectors, particularly healthcare, where federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services play a critical role. The implications of this shift may introduce greater legal uncertainty and could challenge the effectiveness of programs vital to millions, including those serving autistic adults and individuals with disabilities. 

  1. What is Chevron?

The term “Chevron” comes from a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984 in a case called Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This rule told courts to trust federal agencies when they need to interpret laws that are unclear. The idea is that these agencies are experts in their fields, so their decisions should be respected unless they go against what Congress intended. This rule is referred to as Chevron deference, or the Chevron doctrine.  

For example, if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decides that a certain manufacturing process is harmful to the environment under a law that isn’t very clear, the courts would usually go along with what the EPA says. This is because the EPA has experts who understand environmental issues better than the courts do. So, even if the law isn’t specific, the courts would trust the EPA’s judgment unless it’s obvious that the EPA’s decision goes against what Congress meant when they created the law. 

  1. What happened recently to Chevron?

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court made a big decision to change the Chevron doctrine in a case named Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This important decision means that courts don’t have to automatically agree with government agencies when laws are unclear. Instead, the courts will make up their own minds about what the laws mean. Because of this new rule, courts won’t just go along with what agency experts say anymore. Now, they will look at unclear laws themselves and decide what they think the law means, without relying on the agency’s expertise. This is a big change from how things were done for almost 40 years.  

Now in our example, if the EPA says a certain way of manufacturing is bad for the environment under a law that isn’t clear, the courts might not agree with the EPA like they used to. They might decide differently based on their own understanding of the law. 

  1. What does this mean for everyone?

This new rule really mixes things up. The change to the Chevron doctrine could change how power is shared between the different parts of the U.S. government. Agencies like the EPA or the Department of Health, which make decisions based on their expert knowledge, might now have to explain and defend their choices in court a lot more. This could lead to inconsistent interpretations of laws across different states and more legal challenges. Agencies might become more cautious in defining regulations clearly. Additionally, this situation could compel Congress to draft laws that are more detailed and specific. 

Now, the federal courts, which usually don’t have the same expert knowledge as these agencies, will make the final decisions on unclear laws. This could make some government programs and rules less effective because the courts might not understand the details as well as the agencies do. For example, in environmental matters, judges without environment-specific knowledge might make decisions that don’t fit well with the complex issues that the EPA usually handles. This means both businesses and everyday people might face more uncertainty about how laws are enforced and what they really mean. 

  1. What does this mean for healthcare, services, and benefits for autistic adults?

Changes in how laws are interpreted could strongly affect healthcare, especially for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which handles expansive programs like Medicare and Medicaid. These programs rely on HHS to correctly understand and use complex healthcare laws. But with the recent changes in the courts, HHS might find it harder to manage these programs well, which could lead to problems in how healthcare is provided and who can access it. 

The Supreme Court’s new decision could also change how rules for disability services are applied, impacting agencies like the Social Security Administration (SSA) and HHS, which help people with disabilities, including autistic adults. In the past, these agencies could quickly change their rules to better meet people’s needs (such as adjusting SSI/SSDI payments to the cost of living or changing rules to let family members be paid for providing home-based services during COVID-19) or make it easier for them to get care. Now, changes they try to make could be challenged in court, leading to stricter rules that might not work as well. 

This reduced flexibility could affect programs that help autistic adults and others with disabilities. Agencies might hesitate to update or improve their services to make them more welcoming and effective, worried that these changes could be reversed by a court. This could slow down or even stop improvements that would make care and quality of life better for those who depend on these services. 

When it comes to Social Security and disability benefits, the laws already are seen as unclear and open for interpretation. Previously, courts would often defer to the SSA’s expertise under the Chevron doctrine, trusting their judgment in these complex areas. But now, with judges having more freedom to interpret laws on their own, there could be more uncertainty in court decisions. This means outcomes in disputes over disability benefits and rights could vary greatly depending on each judge’s interpretation. This inconsistency could make it harder for people to get benefits they need and could affect how anti-discrimination laws are applied, making life more complicated for those who rely on these important services. 

Conclusion 

The recent changes to the Chevron doctrine will significantly alter how laws are interpreted and applied in the U.S. Courts will no longer have to automatically trust agency experts on unclear laws but instead make their own decisions. This change could complicate and make outcomes unpredictable, particularly in sectors like healthcare and environmental protection. For agencies responsible for healthcare and disability services, it could become more challenging to maintain consistent and effective programs. For individuals, especially those who depend on healthcare and disability benefits, this means facing greater uncertainty and less consistent services. Moving forward, everyone, from government officials to the public, will need to adapt to this new, complicated legal environment, which could prove difficult. 

Resources 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]