The Washington Post Quotes Maddie Boyer on Impacts of U.S. Supreme Court’s Chevron Decision on Environmental Rules
Principal Maddie Boyer (Austin) spoke with The Washington Post about the Supreme Court’s decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and the overturning of Chevron deference.
Asked about the potential impacts of the Court’s decision on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of chemicals, Maddie explained that the impacts would be limited because EPA assesses through its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) process the health risks posed by specific chemicals by interpreting scientific studies and data, not by interpreting statutes. “[Chevron] isn’t intended to address the deference that should be given to an agency’s interpretation of its own facts and science,” she said in the article.
As a consequence, IRIS assessments – including those that states or industry deem controversial and would challenge as being flawed in some respect – will continue to avoid judicial review under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright and Relentless. These chemical risk assessments are the foundation for EPA regulations and policies, and the inability to seek timely and meaningful review of these assessments has frustrated state and industry stakeholders. Entities seeking to influence EPA’s chemical risk assessments will need to engage early and vigorously in the process. Congress has begun to consider legislation to reform the IRIS process, but the outlook for that legislation is uncertain at best. We provide additional analysis in our client alert, Supreme Court Update: How Would Changes to Chevron Deference Affect EPA Risk Analyses.
The now-overturned Chevron doctrine required federal courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of their governing statutes in cases where the text of the ruling statutes is ambiguous.
B&D’s litigators are actively involved in cases in courts nationwide, including the U.S. Supreme Court, where we recently secured a victory for a natural gas pipeline client in Ohio v. EPA relating to the CAA and are preparing to argue a CWA case in the Court’s upcoming fall term for the City and County of San Francisco. Our Chemicals Regulation practice group and Chemicals industry group provide strategic, business-focused advice to the global chemicals industry. We work with large and small chemical and products companies whose products and activities are subject to EPA’s broad chemical regulatory authority, including assisting them in IRIS assessments, chemical rulemakings, and rulemaking challenges.
