Environmentalists predictably cheered last month after a federal appeals court overruled EPA and found that one of the nation’s largest metro areas needed to do more to clamp down on lung-searing smog pollution.
More surprisingly, however, their cause may have been at least marginally aided by a controversial Supreme Court ruling that initially raised alarm among environmental groups and others.
Last year’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo held that judges — not federal agencies — have the lead in interpreting ambiguous statutes. The ruling overturned the Chevron doctrine, which required federal judges to defer to agencies’ expertise when disagreements arose over the meaning of the Clean Air Act and other statutes.
When the high court issued the Loper Bright opinion last year, “people said it was going to be a double-edged sword,” John Petoskey, a senior associate attorney with Earthjustice, said in an interview. “And this is one of those instances where it has been.”
