The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is already causing a lot of people a lot of stress.
Loper Bright overturned Chevron deference, which the Supreme Court established in its 1984 decision in the case of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. That decision essentially said that when a federal agency writes rules and regulations to add specifics to a law passed by Congress, if that rule or regulation is challenged in court on the basis that the intent of the law is ambiguous, judges must defer to the expertise of the agency.
But in the majority opinion in Loper, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”
That takes a lot of power away from the executive and legislative branches and gives a lot of power to the judiciary when it comes to determining the effectiveness of federal laws. And that has freaked out those who fear that this shift will embolden businesses and others to file lawsuits challenging laws that are intended to protect the environment, civil rights, and other areas vulnerable to corporate meddling.
Disability leaders are similarly freaked out by the potential magnitude of the Loper decision because when Congress has passed laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it has called upon federal agencies to craft and issue specific rules and regulations that add substance to those laws.
The website of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) says that the organization works “alongside disability advocates, government agencies, and corporate and nonprofit partners to advance the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
In a statement about the Loper decision, AAPD President and CEO Maria Town said, “AAPD is deeply concerned that this decision will open the door to an avalanche of lawsuits aimed at gutting federal regulations that safeguard the rights of people with disabilities, such as disabled peoples’ access to healthcare, but also on issues that affect all Americans, and are of significant importance for disabled people’s lives, such as civil rights protections, employment protections, environmental standards, safety standards, and food and drug regulation.”
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network also put out a statement that “condemns” the Supreme Court’s action. The statement says, “This ruling will weaken the regulatory authority of all federal agencies . . . . Federal agencies create regulations or rules that fill in the gaps of laws intended to protect disability rights, civil rights laws, housing, healthcare, and more . . . . Instead, federal courts will now have the final say in circumstances where knowledge of highly specialized, complex, and technical issues is required. This change will lead to inconsistent and conflicting adjudication across the country, driving avoidable litigation, confusion, and decisions that do not work well for the people they affect.”
This fear is not unfounded. Some companies, such as Domino’s Pizza, have challenged ADA regulations all the way to the Supreme Court. I believe that the political intent of the six judges who voted in the majority in this decision was to make it easier for hostile forces like that to prevail.