If you have followed the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch, chances are you’ve heard the concept of Chevron Deference once or twice.  Over lunch today, I took the time to tune in for a brief while.  Of note to me was a comment Senator Amy Klobuchar, an attorney from Minnesota, made on Judge Gorsuch’s desire to overturn Chevron Deference, a legal concept established in the Supreme Court case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. from 1984.

“This 33-year-old case guarantees that the most complex regulatory decisions are made by experts who are best equipped to handle them. Overturning Chevron would have titanic real-world implications, jeopardizing rules that protect public safety, requirements against lead‐based paint, and clean water protections for our Great Lakes.”

As I had mentioned in my previous blog post, part of my trip a month ago to D.C. actually educated me on the topic of Chevron Deference.  Senator Klobuchar’s comments sent me scrambling.  I thought I had learned wrong.  It turns out that I hadn’t.  Whatever your view of the confirmation of Gorsuch, you might be interested in knowing what Chevron Deference is really about.

What Chevron Deference states is that if you or I are caught in a lawsuit with any agency of the United States Government, and you or I and our experts have a reasonable interpretation of the law, and the agency and their employees have a reasonable interpretation of the law, the courts must side with the government agency.  It was a fine thing to have heard that Senator Klobuchar feels that the government employs “experts who are best equipped to handle” regulatory decisions, but I think most of us would have our doubts.  I know farmers for the last eight years that have had them, and I can bet on the environmental groups that will have them with the new EPA.

It has an ironic feel that liberal leaning legislators would mention the repeal of Chevron as a concern for Gorsuch, when a repeal of Chevron might actually be one of their better friends.  But then filibustering a nominee who would restore the court to its former balance and as a consequence invoke a Senate rule change that will clear the way for nominees much more from the fringe feels ironic as well.  Then again, I don’t suppose anyone has ever accused D.C. of being overly-farsighted.

I’m a poor guesser of the future, but I would guess that the fight to overturn Chevron Deference will someday have new, leftward-leaning allies.