The Supreme Court on Friday tossed out the Chevron doctrine, which had directed courts to defer to agencies'"reasonable" interpretations of ambiguous laws.The Supreme Court's decision Friday to give judges more authority over federal agencies creates new hurdles for the Biden administration as it seeks to promote low-carbon energy and address climate change.
“In the short run, we expect a significant increase in regulatory litigation, including challenges to existing regulations, ongoing rulemakings and existing precedents,” said Gordon Todd, who co-chairs the regulatory litigation practice group at the firm Sidley Austin. Michael Drysdale, an attorney specializing in environmental law at Dorsey & Whitney, noted that many regulations were already “square pegs in a round hole” because they rely on the Clean Air Act — which was last revised in 1990, well before greenhouse gases were considered pollutants.
The rule, drafted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act , is being challenged as another way to limit financing for oil and gas projects.last year played a key role in upholding the rule when Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of TexasIn doing so, the Trump appointee invoked the doctrine, writing that the Labor Department’s interpretation of the rule is “supported by its prior rulemakings.
"I suppose parties challenging Order No. 1920 will try to bring the case to another circuit and argue that FERC has no authority to issue any planning rule," Peskoe said in an email."Or if the case is in DC, maybe they’ll ask the Court to look at it again now that FERC can’t benefit from Chevron deference."