Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Chevron Deference: A Boon for Animal-Related Businesses

By AAW Member Mindy Patterson

A statue of the blindfolded lady justice in front of the United States Supreme Court.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron Deference, a judicial doctrine that has long given federal agencies significant latitude in interpreting ambiguous statutes. This ruling marks a significant shift in administrative law and promises to have far-reaching implications for various sectors, including animal-related businesses licensed by the USDA under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Animal Care division. For years, these businesses have faced stringent and often heavy-handed enforcement actions from APHIS, frequently finding themselves written up for violations not explicitly outlined in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) or the Horse Protection Act (HPA). The overturning of Chevron Deference offers a glimmer of hope for these enterprises, potentially ushering in an era of fairer and more predictable regulatory oversight.

Chevron Deference, established by the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., required courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers, as long as the interpretation is reasonable. This doctrine has significantly empowered federal agencies, enabling them to enact and enforce regulations with considerable discretion.

While Chevron Deference was intended to ensure that government agencies, with their supposed “specialized expertise,” could effectively implement complex statutory schemes, it has also led to concerns about unchecked regulatory power and inconsistent application of laws. Businesses, including those in the animal enterprise sector, have often found themselves at the mercy of fluctuating and unpredictable regulatory interpretations.

The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Chevron Deference signals a fundamental change in the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies. The Court’s ruling underscores the principle that it is ultimately the judiciary’s role to interpret the law, rather than deferring to administrative agencies.  In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for clear statutory language and cautioned against allowing agencies to fill in the gaps of ambiguous legislation without judicial oversight. This move aims to restore a more balanced approach to regulatory interpretation, ensuring that agencies and their unelected bureaucrats adhere more closely to the letter of the law as written by Congress.

Accordingly, the overturning of Chevron Deference is poised to have a profound impact on animal-related businesses licensed by the USDA under APHIS’ Animal Care division. These businesses, ranging from zoos and aquariums to breeders and exhibitors, have long grappled with the challenges posed by APHIS’ rigorous and sometimes overzealous enforcement practices.

One of the most immediate benefits of the Supreme Court’s decision is the potential for relief from regulatory overreach. Under Chevron Deference, APHIS has had the authority to interpret and enforce the AWA and HPA with considerable flexibility. This has sometimes resulted in businesses being cited for violations that are not explicitly mentioned in the statutes, leading to confusion, frustration, and significant financial burdens.

By curtailing APHIS’ interpretive leeway, the Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that enforcement actions must be firmly grounded in the clear and unambiguous language of the law. This change will hopefully lead to more predictable and transparent regulatory practices, allowing businesses to better understand their obligations and avoid unwarranted penalties.

The decision to overturn Chevron Deference also means that courts will now play a more active role in reviewing agency interpretations of statutes. For animal-related businesses, this translates to greater judicial oversight of APHIS’ enforcement actions. Courts will no longer automatically defer to APHIS’ interpretations but will instead scrutinize the agency’s actions to ensure they align with the statutory text. This increased judicial oversight provides a critical check on APHIS’ power, helping to prevent arbitrary or capricious enforcement actions. Businesses that believe they have been unfairly targeted or penalized by APHIS will have a stronger legal footing to challenge these actions in court, fostering a more equitable regulatory environment.

The Supreme Court’s decision also sends a clear message to Congress about the importance of drafting precise and unambiguous legislation. In the absence of Chevron Deference, lawmakers will need to be more meticulous in defining the scope and limits of agency authority within the statutes they enact.  For animal-related businesses, this could lead to more clearly defined regulations under the AWA and HPA. Congress may be prompted to revisit and refine these laws, ensuring that they provide clear guidance to both businesses and regulatory agencies. This clarity will help prevent the kind of interpretive ambiguities that have historically led to contentious enforcement actions.

While the overturning of Chevron Deference is largely seen as a positive development for animal-related businesses, it is not without potential challenges and considerations. The transition to a new regulatory paradigm will require adjustments from both businesses and regulatory agencies. Animal-related businesses will need to stay informed about the evolving regulatory landscape and be prepared to navigate any changes that arise from the Supreme Court’s decision. This may involve reassessing compliance strategies, seeking legal counsel to understand the implications of the new judicial approach, and staying engaged with legislative developments.

Similarly, APHIS and other regulatory agencies will need to adapt to the heightened judicial scrutiny of their actions. This may necessitate changes in enforcement practices, more rigorous justification of regulatory decisions, and increased efforts to align actions with statutory language. The shift away from Chevron Deference could also lead to an increase in litigation as businesses and agencies test the boundaries of the new legal framework. Animal-related businesses may be more inclined to challenge APHIS’ enforcement actions in court, leading to a potentially higher volume of legal disputes.

Despite the challenges, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron Deference offers a promising path forward for animal-related businesses licensed by the USDA under APHIS’ Animal Care division. By reining in regulatory overreach, enhancing judicial oversight, and encouraging clearer legislation, this landmark ruling lays the groundwork for a more balanced and predictable regulatory environment.

To capitalize on the opportunities presented by this decision, animal-related businesses should actively engage with policymakers, regulatory agencies, and industry associations. By participating in advocacy efforts and contributing to the legislative process, businesses can help shape the future regulatory landscape in a way that supports fair and effective oversight.

Finally, animal-related businesses can benefit from collaboration and the sharing of best practices within the industry. By working together to develop common standards, share compliance strategies, and support one another in navigating regulatory challenges, something The Cavalry Group calls, “self-regulation,” businesses can foster a stronger and more resilient sector.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron Deference marks a significant turning point in administrative law with profound implications for animal-related businesses licensed by the USDA under APHIS’ Animal Care division. By restoring a more balanced approach to regulatory interpretation and enhancing judicial oversight, this landmark ruling offers a pathway to fairer and more predictable regulatory practices. My organization, The Cavalry Group knows this first-hand, as we have defended our members for 14-plus years against government agencies implementing rules and regulations inconsistent with the law. You can learn more about The Cavalry Group on our website: thecavalrygroup.com