Hirono addresses concerns over potential SCOTUS ruling affecting regulatory framework

Government
Webp 9zfgwofvhvgf4y9919glzak6shkb
Senator Mazie K. Hirono | U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono

On June 18, 2024, U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, addressed the Senate floor regarding the Supreme Court’s impending decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The case threatens to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which has been integral to federal regulatory processes for over four decades.

In her speech, Senator Hirono emphasized the potential adverse effects of overturning Chevron on routine decisions made by federal agency experts. "To be clear, this case is not about the so-called major questions doctrine, but about the sorts of day-to-day decisions that federal agency experts have to make when implementing programs to protect the American people," said Hirono. "It would empower the hundreds of individual federal judges to overrule carefully-considered rule-making decisions by agency experts, turning a consistent regulatory framework into a chaotic mess of conflicting opinions."

The Chevron doctrine allows courts to defer to reasonable interpretations by administrative agencies when laws are ambiguous. Initially favored by conservative judges as a check against judicial activism, it has faced opposition from many conservatives in recent years who view it as an obstacle to consolidating power and advancing their ideological agendas.

"Eliminating Chevron now, after more than four decades, would sow chaos and confusion on agency actions moving forward, as well as the nearly 18,000 federal cases that have been decided based on the Chevron doctrine," continued Hirono. "And even if the Court stops short of fully eliminating Chevron, significantly narrowing it will have much the same effect."

Senator Hirono underscored that overturning Chevron is part of a broader agenda by far-right ideologues aiming to capture courts and weaken regulatory systems. Justice Gorsuch has been one of its most vocal critics, calling for its complete abolition.

"This case is about who should be making policy decisions on issues that affect our lives – subject matter experts or federal judges?" Hirono questioned. She argued that federal judges lack expertise in specialized areas such as environmental science or healthcare standards.

The decision in this significant case is expected soon and could become another example of what Hirono describes as a court overturning long-standing precedents and creating widespread uncertainty.

###