Alec Goldstein

ELR Staffer (Class of 2026)

Our environmental regulations are in desperate need of change to prevent global warming, and this task is not getting any easier. According to a recent UN climate report ‘Coal, Tar Sands, and Fracking Gas: Fueling Climate Change’, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half to prevent the most devastating effects of global warming. After the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, this task is likely going to prove even more difficult.

The Loper Bright decision could severely affect the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to effectively regulate, potentially hindering the fight against climate change. This ruling overturned the Chevron Doctrine, which required courts to defer to a government agency’s interpretation of a law if the law was unclear or ambiguous, as long as the agency’s interpretation was reasonable. Broadly, under Chevron, courts were obligated to defer to the agency’s interpretation of a statute where that statute is silent or ambiguous on the issue. 

With Chevron overturned, the older Skidmore Doctrine now applies. Skidmore deference is a legal rule that says courts should respect or give weight to a government agency’s interpretation, but they are not required to follow it. Courts are expected to consider how persuasive the agency’s interpretation is based on factors like expertise, reasoning, and consistency. This could create problems for the EPA, as courts may choose to give less deference to the agency’s specialized knowledge in cases involving ambiguous laws, which could undermine the EPA’s ability to regulate complex areas like environmental law and public health.

Without Chevron deference, courts can more easily limit the EPA’s authority to create rules that target emissions from power plants, vehicles, and industries. This could hinder the agency’s ability to implement strict regulations on emissions, reducing the effectiveness of its climate change efforts. For example, fossil fuel companies could challenge the EPA’s authority to set stricter emissions standards. If a court finds the standard ambiguous, the court now has greater authority to strike down such a regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gasses, which are critical for curbing climate change.

The Loper Bright decision might also make it more difficult for the EPA to act swiftly and decisively in addressing climate change. With the burden now on the courts to decide how laws should be interpreted when they’re unclear, the EPA’s expert knowledge might be overlooked. This is especially concerning in the fight against global warming, where specialized knowledge and expertise in environmental science are crucial to creating effective regulations. The agency’s ability to introduce stringent rules on emissions could be slowed or blocked by legal challenges from industries that produce these emissions.

Additionally, the lack of deference to the EPA’s expertise could sway fossil fuel companies to launch more lawsuits aimed at weakening or reversing climate regulations. In the long run, this could significantly delay efforts to reduce emissions, pushing the world closer to dangerous levels of warming. With the UN’s report on coal, tar sand, and climate change, this legal shift comes at a critical time. It raises the risk that courts, less equipped to understand complex environmental issues than the agency with relevant expertise, may make rulings that prioritize short-term economic interests over long-term environmental sustainability.

At this critical time, any setback on fighting climate change can have profound consequences. This decision is steering us in the wrong direction. Weakening the EPA’s ability to regulate industries responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions creates a hazardous situation, where essential environmental policies may be delayed or diluted, just when swift action is imperative. The scientific consensus is clear: we need aggressive, immediate measures to cut emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources. Limiting the EPA’s authority jeopardizes these crucial efforts, putting the health of our planet and future generations at even greater risk. It is now vital for the EPA and the courts to work together to find a balanced solution that addresses this urgent issue without delay.