United States: In a recent development, experts revealed that the Supreme Court decision that overturned the “Chevron doctrine” has the potential to upend regulations on everything that the products, ranging from tobacco to pharmaceuticals, make surprising changes in medical bills, as the Guardian reported.
More about the News
The Chevron doctrine, which is a 40-year-old legal framework, did ask courts to defer to the decisions made by the US federal agencies.
This decision, which had long-term impacts, where the court’s majority decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless Inc v Department of Commerce held last week held that the reverse should apply, where courts must have final decision-making power, even in cases where highly regulations are involved.
According to Prof Lawrence O Gostin, an expert in health law and a professor at Georgetown Law’s O’Neill Institute, “This was a gut punch for health, safety and the environment in the US,” as the Guardian reported.
“There’ll be no area where agencies act to protect the public’s health or safety or the environment that won’t be adversely affected by this ruling,” Gostin continued.
Moreover, as per Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, the decision would “jolt” the legal system with the application of a framework that had become part of the “warp and woof of modern government.”
What more have the experts stated?
Although, along with another relatively low-profile ruling, which held to expand the timing for people to sue agencies, the end of the Chevron doctrine would have an impact on every American’s daily life.
To take an instance, the tobacco industry would have a smoother time challenging the so-called controversial regulation on vaping products, whereas drugmakers could now face new challenges in terms of novel uncertainties, as they put in millions in a new project for R&D; although it would be easier for the doctors to make an argument against rules, hat prohibits sending patients surprise medical bills.
According to Senator Mitch McConnell, the decision “leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself,” as CNBC reported.
More about Chevron’s doctrine
It was named so for the 1983 Supreme Court case Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The court’s ruling took the side of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which at that time had issued a regulation that environmental advocates viewed as friendly to industry, as the Guardian reported.
The Chevron framework could be seen in almost 40 percent of the Supreme Court’s opinions, which grew further to 60 percent by the 1990s.
The conservative Justice Antonin Scalia is said to be one of the doctrine’s greatest proponents, as per an article written by Columbia Law School professor Thomas Merrill, a Federalist Society contributor and an expert on the doctrine.
Merrill wrote, “It is not overstating the matter to say that Chevron has become one of a handful of decisions – along with Marbury v Madison, Brown v Board of Education, and Roe v Wade – that is the material for a continuing collective meditation about the role of the courts and indeed of the law itself in the governance of our society,” as the Guardian reported.