On Climate and the End of Chevron Deference

By Justin Worland

Want more from TIME in your inbox? Explore our other newsletters here.

It’s hard to imagine a wonkier sounding court case than Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The case, which the Supreme Court ruled on last week, looks at a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service and gets into the weeds of administrative law.

But despite sounding obscure on the surface the Supreme Court’s decision cuts to the core of how the federal government regulates climate change with profound implications for businesses and industry. In Loper Bright , the Court struck down the legal doctrine known as Chevron deference that since the 1980s has given federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency wide latitude to interpret the law in places where it’s ambiguous. The practical argument for this approach is fairly straightforward: agencies have technical expertise that both the courts and Congress lack. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority on the Court, wrote that Chevron gave agencies too much leeway, allowing them “to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so.”

Whatever your view of the arguments in the case, there’s little question that decision will change the dynamics over energy and climate regulation. The doctrine comes out of litigation over the Clean Air Act, an important tool in the climate policy making toolbox. The Chevron doctrine was applied in 96% of administrative law energy cases between 2003 and 2013, according to a 2017 Michigan Law Review article. The agency in question won 60% of the time.

In recent years, the EPA has veered away from citing Chevron to justify its rules—responding to the conservative Court’s skepticism of the doctrine. But nonetheless conservatives will use the decision to underpin a wide range of lawsuits on energy and climate rules. Business groups and companies, too, are likely to turn their attention to litigation—perhaps more so than lobbying agencies—to shape regulation. And Loper may give federal judges who are skeptical of climate rules the ammunition they need to chip away at them.

Read more: Inside Fiji’s Fiery Battle Against Plastics

For businesses, figuring out how the regulatory environment will shake out post-Chevron will take time. Many businesses are watching the political fallout environment closely to see if Trump, and other right-wing populists around the world, will shift the direction of climate policy. For those looking to read the tea leaves, it’s worth considering the fallout from Loper, too.

Must-read stories from TIME Climate:

• Inside Fiji’s Fiery Battle Against Plastics
• Why Beryl’s ‘Unprecedented’ Timing Is a Sign of Climate Change’s Impact on Extreme Weather
• Climate at the Debate: Muddy Details, Clear Records