By Nicholas Stover

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently overturned a decades-old ruling known colloquially as the Chevron Deference.

This decision resulted from a challenge by the organization Loper Bright Enterprises Inc., a group of commercial fishing interests. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo Secretary of Commerce et al., brought two questions: Does the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to promulgate a rule that would require industry to pay for at-sea monitoring programs? Should the Court overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council or at least clarify whether statutory silence on controversial powers creates an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency?

Specifically, the ruling’s consideration of the latter question led to overturning of precedent whereby ambiguous statutory language in federal legislation was addressed by outside intelligence agencies such as the EPA, HUD, or any other agency. Plainly, this means courts must resolve gaps in understandings related to any federal level legislation. The consequence of this is increasingly partisan interpretations of laws, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on challenges brought before the court system, and a potential overwhelming of the court system by increased litigation loads.

Photo: NOAA/Unsplash

At present, the ruling does not overturn previous matters of deference from the policy’s inception in 1984 until this year, though this may change as challenges are brought to varying precedents. Moving forward, impacts of this will be felt broadly. Those federal agencies serving in the role as interpreters of statutory language are now severely limited in their ability to provide impactful decision making for protection of public welfare since this role now shifts to judges within the court system. Consequently, assuming a worst-case scenario, it may be possible to form a business whose motives disfavor certain regulations. Said business may then bring challenges to those regulations. The manufacturing of these challenges, along with the slowing of interpretations from administrative agencies, and potentially inconsistent rulings may mean negative outcomes as a general statement.

Tying everything together, this represents a grave misstep by, what is increasingly clear, a partisan Supreme Court. As it relates to concerns of city planners, what is immediately apparent is what may happen with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as an example. Since the agency regulates a host of issues including eviction procedures, tenant selection, prepayment of Section 515 mortgages, and design and construction standards held in the Fair Housing Act, among others, these issues are now in jeopardy on the basis of interpretation by individual judges.

Thus, planning for housing becomes considerably more difficult in some aspects as applicability has been called into doubt. For now, the decision effects only those agencies on the federal level. This may change over time as states, and even locales, find compelling arguments in new precedents that will surely come as a result of overturning established precedent through the Chevron Doctrine. Things to look out for may include challenges to zoning regulations and local entitlements by developers, which would effectively usurp the work of current and previous planners. 
In any event, this case should only underscore the importance of professional planners to continue on and fight inane decisions of monied interests. This might mean working to increase specificity or reducing complexity in legislative language, depending on the issue. It also underscores the importance of being vigilant where bad faith actors may benefit in some way despite clear detriment toward others. Community input, particularly from marginalized populations, on issues of day-to-day significance will also be more critical than ever as we start to navigate this new landscape.

Nicholas Stover is a recent graduate of the master of city and regional planning program at UNC. His interests intersect with land use, environmental planning, and equitable development.

Featured image: Ezequiel Octaviano/Pixabay