1. United States
2. Colo.
3. Letter

The Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn Chevron v. NRDC significantly limits the power of federal agencies and represents a major shift in administrative law. This ruling strips agencies of their longstanding authority to reasonably interpret ambiguous laws enacted by Congress. Instead, courts will now independently determine if agencies have acted within statutory bounds, a concerning development given the specialized expertise agencies possess in their respective domains. This power grab by the Supreme Court undermines the ability of agencies to effectively implement laws and promulgate regulations vital to protecting public interests like the environment, public health, and consumer rights. It injects increased uncertainty into regulatory processes and opens the door for a flood of legal challenges against existing agency rules and interpretations. Unelected judges lacking subject matter expertise will now scrutinize even longstanding policies from the EPA, FDA, OSHA and others. Congress intended for agencies to fill gaps and flesh out ambiguous statutory language when administering complex laws and programs. Overturning the Chevron deference framework unnecessarily handcuffs agencies and inserts courts into areas where they lack competency. This ruling represents an alarming shift of policymaking power away from accountable agencies toward an unelected judiciary. Swift action is needed to restore agencies' ability to carry out their congressionally-mandated responsibilities and safeguard the administrative state's proper functioning. Upholding the Chevron doctrine maintains a balanced separation of powers and preserves regulatory efficacy for the public good.