Congress needs to learn to do a better job of writing laws. That’s my conclusion after reviewing the legal debate over whether the Supreme Court should renounce the Chevron doctrine it unanimously promulgated (with three justices not participating) back in 1984.
What is the Chevron doctrine, and why does it matter? It arose out of a Clean Air Act case, and it hinged on whether the Court must accept a regulatory agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute passed by Congress. The court said that yes, it must. Once it found the statute (a provision of the Clean Air Act) ambiguous, it had to accept the interpretation of the agency (the Environmental Protection Agency) “if it is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Even if the judges think it’s wrong. Even if the agency has after a change in administration changed its interpretation, as in Chevron it had.
