Chevron’s decision may lead to environmental lawsuits, permit delays

Listen to the article
9 minutes

This audio is automatically generated. Please let us know if you have any comments.

Supreme Court June Chevron The ruling is likely to have a seismic impact on laws related to the construction industry, legal experts say.

In their Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo In this summer’s decision, the justices overturned the 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, formerly one of the most consequential rulings on federal administrative law. The decision revoked the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts must interpret ambiguities.

Now, with the demise of what was known as the Chevron deference doctrine, a slew of regulations are ripe for challenge because the federal agencies that enforce them have overstepped their bounds, legal experts told Construction Dive. The National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and OSHA’s heat standard are among those likely to be challenged.

“In the immediate future, we will see an increase in litigation on this basis, and we are already seeing many complaints being amended to include Loper Bright in cases that are before the courts now,” said attorney Prianka Sharma. , vice president and regulatory affairs advisor for the American Association of Highway and Transportation Builders.

In theory, the decision should lead to less wavering in regulations when presidential administrations change. However, the changes will take time to shake out, which could delay authorization as agencies try to understand how to adapt. According to Sharma, uncertainty will continue to exist until some legal precedent is established at the federal district court and circuit court levels.

“One thing we’re really looking forward to is that [Loper Bright] it will lead to less swing of the pendulum depending on who is in charge,” Sharma said.

A second sentence

A few days later Loper Bright, ruled the Supreme Court Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that the six-year period for challenging an agency regulation begins when a plaintiff is harmed by the rule, rather than when the regulation was terminated. In other words, builders recently hit by long-standing regulations may now have a chance to challenge them.

Taken together, these rulings open up established rules to new scrutiny, and this time, agencies won’t get the same deference they got under Chevron. That likely means the construction industry will contest laws they once thought weren’t worth the effort, said attorney Curtis Moore, a partner at Atlanta-based Fisher Phillips.

“If an employer has a disagreement with the agency about an interpretation, in the past, we might say, ‘Well, that’s a pretty uphill battle, given that the agency has deference to their interpretation.’ Now there really isn’t that thumb on the scale, so to speak,” Moore said.

Post-Chevron Legal Changes

Congress will likely pass more detailed laws as a result of Loper Bright, according to attorney Rafe Petersen, a partner at Miami-based Holland & Knight and a member of the firm’s Chevron Deference task force.

When new administrations come in, they usually want to undo the work of the previous administration, but now, instead of new agencies being appointed to interpret laws differently, Congress must amend those laws to advance a new agenda.

“It tends to be Congress, I think, that felt they were doing themselves a favor by writing a relatively vague law that would give the agency leeway,” Petersen said. “Now, with the current jurisprudence … unless there’s a clear statement and Congress wanted the agencies to do this, the courts are going to say, ‘Well, no, you don’t have the authority, go back to Congress if you want this fixed. . .’”

That said, agencies will also be preparing for a post-Chevron landscape, according to Sharma, “so they’ll also be trying to strengthen their case.”

An unintended consequence of Loper Bright is that agencies may rely more on recommendations than regulations, which would be harder to challenge, Petersen said.

“One ironic effect may be that agencies are now re-regulating more through guidance,” Petersen said. “If they’re afraid that regulation will get through, they’ll use guidance, which is harder to challenge, because they’ll say, ‘Well, that’s not legally binding.’

Laws vulnerable to challenge

The The Loper Bright decision will likely come into play more in cases where an administration is trying to advance an agenda and the underlying laws are not very clear, Petersen said.

In particular, he expects that regulations based on more modern concepts of environmental law and environmental justice, such as those dealing with stormwater, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act, will be questioned.

“The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and all these laws, a lot of these were written in the 1970s. Well, nobody contemplated, much less put into law, things like : ‘How do you address climate change and how do you address environmental justice?’” Petersen said.

some OSHA regulations, such as a pending heat standardit can also be vulnerable because the agency tends to interpret its powers broadly, according to Moore. Its position that the agency can record interviews without the permission of the employee or management official can also be legally challenged, contradicting an earlier interpretation from the 1990s.

For builders in warmer parts of the country, “[the heat standard is] it’s almost always going to be triggered, and it’s going to have a big impact on how you can schedule your work,” Moore said. “I think these are the kinds of regulations where industry groups and employers are going to decide it’s worth the legal expense to challenge – it in the light of Chevron”.

Additionally, multifamily builders can challenge how the Fair Housing Act’s design and construction rules have been interpreted, as well as New HUD Floodplain RulesPetersen said.

“For multi-family companies that are building multi-family housing and so forth, I think that would be something that would at least be looked at,” Petersen said.

Two challenges already filed that may include an argument from Loper Bright are the Federal Highway Administration’s greenhouse gas rule and OSHA’s review rule, Sharma said. Petersen expects more cases involving Loper Bright to begin coming out in the next month or two.

Other laws have less chance of being successfully overturned.

“I think in most of these cases where there was a prior challenge to the Chevron statute, that decision will stand unless there’s new ground,” Moore said. “I think this will work more prospectively, where you see new regulations or new statutory challenges being decided after Chevron.”

What builders should know

As cases make their way through the court system, varying rulings from different circuits could make it difficult for builders to understand how to comply. The Supreme Court may be called upon more frequently to rule on disagreements at the circuit court level.

Until the Supreme Court sets some precedent, “I think you’re going to see inconsistent decisions, probably, from different circuits, and that, at least initially, is going to create a bit of a headache for employers as they try to figure out, you know, ‘OK.’ , if I operate in multiple states and one decision went this way and another decision went that way, what do I do?’” Moore said.

For now, industry professionals must be prepared to comply, according to Moore.

“If you’re in an industry that’s going to be affected by the heat stress rule or any other rule that comes out, be prepared for those,” Moore said. “So you start looking at implementing policies and procedures that you may need to have if these rules go into effect and the challenges are unsuccessful.”

In the short term, the ruling could slow things down if allowed, according to Petersen.

“That’s generally what delays agencies, is they have to deal with the latest case and deal with the latest guidance and work with what happens when their regulations close. So, you know , agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA, you know, that could have the effect of slowing down permits,” Petersen said.

To address this, Petersen urged builders to apply for permits as soon as possible and use them as soon as they get them.

“When there’s all this rapid change and things are overturning, I always advise people, even if the construction is in phases, to use the permit,” Petersen said. “Move quickly, if you can, in times of uncertainty, just to make sure you get the benefit of all your effort.”