Exploring a Post-Chevron Deference Landscape: Impact and Implications During the Trump Era

There’s a big difference between the power of the president and the power of the courts.

President Donald Trump started his term aiming to reshape the government and society. While he has some authority, many legal challenges will determine what he can actually do.

One key issue will be how much power courts grant federal agencies to implement Trump’s plans. A significant Supreme Court decision from last year plays a crucial role in this discussion.

Marketplace Senior Washington Correspondent Kimberly Adams recently chatted with host Sabri Ben-Achour on a segment about the “Chevron deference,” which has now changed since the Supreme Court’s ruling. Here’s a summary of their conversation.

Sabri Ben-Achour: What was Chevron deference, and why did the Supreme Court get rid of it?

Kimberly Adams: Chevron deference meant that if there was a disagreement over a regulation, courts typically gave federal agencies the benefit of the doubt. Critics argued that agencies were overstepping their bounds. The Supreme Court sided with these critics, deciding that courts should interpret laws, not just defer to agency rules.

Ben-Achour: Conservatives celebrated this decision at the time. How does it affect the Trump administration now that they are in control of these agencies?

Adams: It could benefit them. Some conservative lawyers see the ruling as an opportunity for the administration to limit regulations. They’re reconsidering how much power agencies have to interpret laws.

Ben-Achour: So, old regulations may be challenged, but what about new ones?

Adams: Exactly. Under this new framework, both past and future regulations can be scrutinized. Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, points out that agencies like the EPA and Department of Energy will face more challenges in court.

Chilson: The courts are likely to apply a stricter approach to significant agencies, meaning we could see legal battles over new rules from the Trump administration as well.

Adams: Critics of this administration might use the courts to challenge its rules and limit agency actions that might overstep their authority.