The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron deference, a long-standing judicial doctrine, is likely to pose significant long-term threats to public health across the nation, including Arizona.
Historically, the “Chevron deference” allowed federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Labor, and the EPA to interpret laws using their technical expertise.
This approach has enabled these agencies to establish and enforce regulations that protect public health, workplace safety, and the environment for decades.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling now opens the door for corporations to challenge a broad range of federal regulations… and not just new regulations. The door is now open to challenge agency rules that were established decades ago.
Without the Chevron deference, courts may no longer defer to agency expertise in interpreting laws, leading to a potential weakening of crucial health and safety standards.
Read the Supreme Court’s “Chevron” Ruling
For example, the FDA’s ability to regulate food safety and pharmaceuticals could be significantly undermined. Corporations can now challenge regulations that limit harmful substances in food or set stringent approval processes for new drugs. This could lead to an increase in unsafe food products and medications reaching the market, posing a direct threat to public health.
Similarly, the Department of Labor’s workplace protections, including those related to heat exposure and hazardous working conditions, are now open to legal challenges. This is particularly concerning for states like Arizona, where extreme heat and industrial work environments pose serious health risks.
If (when) corporations succeed in weakening these protections, workers may face increased exposure to dangerous conditions without adequate safeguards.
The EPA’s environmental regulations are also at risk. Challenges to air and water quality standards will likely lead to lower standards, worsening respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major shift in how federal regulations are examined in the courts, potentially eroding the foundations of public health protections.
It is crucial for advocates, policymakers, and the public to remain vigilant and proactive in defending the regulations that safeguard our health and environment… but the days of relying on judges to defer to agencies on technical public health matters is now gone (at least at the federal level).
