Cookies, Carrots and the Chevron Deference

Bureaucrats have a bad day thanks to the Supreme Court

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court overturned a significant aspect of administrative law known as the Chevron Deference, a doctrine established in the 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine has long allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes with considerable autonomy.

Critics of Chevron Deference argue that it granted excessive power to federal agencies, undermining the judiciary's role in interpreting the law and infringing upon the legislative branch's authority. On the other hand, proponents contended that agencies possess specialized expertise that courts lack, making them better suited to interpret complex and technical statutes.

Under Chevron Deference, if a federal law was unclear regarding the enforcement of a regulation, the administering agency was allowed to expand those rules with minimal oversight. To illustrate this, imagine a child asking Dad if he could raid the pantry for a snack. The parent says, "Sure," and the child goes for the cookies. However, under Chevron Deference, mom can intervene and insist on a healthier option, like a carrot. The recent Supreme Court decision essentially states that mom should have talked to dad first before giving the kid a carrot; in other words, let the kid have the cookie.

While this analogy is simplified, it highlights the broader issue: the relationship between individuals and their government, rather than just parents and children or cookies and carrots. This shift has significant implications for how government regulations are interpreted and enforced.

What Does This Mean for Local Government?

For local governments, the immediate impact may be minimal. However, it underscores the ambiguity that often exists within our own local regulatory bodies. Take our own Planning Commission, for example. Despite its name, the Planning Commission often spends more time on minor aesthetic decisions rather than detailed planning discussions.

At a recent meeting, the Troy Planning Commission spent nearly twenty minutes debating whether a downtown building should have metal or cloth awnings. The City’s downtown design manual prefers cloth awnings for historical accuracy, but doesn't explicitly ban metal ones. The issue was tabled, and no further action has been taken. On the surface, a clear allowance in the code wasn’t allowed to move forward, based on the “preference” of an appointed board. Sorry applicant, instead of the cookie you applied for, here is a carrot. It should be noted that the item was tabled by the Planning Commission and no further action has been taken.

The Broader Implications of the Chevron Deference Decision

The Supreme Court's decision on Chevron Deference signals a shift away from relying solely on the professional opinions of bureaucrats or appointed boards to guide community, state, or national decisions. Instead, it emphasizes the role of elected officials in decision-making.

In my experience as a township administrator, I often reminded elected officials that it was their responsibility to make decisions, not mine. My role was to provide the information needed for informed decision-making, but the ultimate choices were theirs to make. This approach ensures that decisions are made by those accountable to the public.

Bureaucrats, from local to federal levels, may feel empowered to make decisions due to their expertise or the reluctance of elected officials to act. However, well-meaning bureaucrats are not a panacea for every issue. Effective problem-solving requires committed individuals who listen to the public and remain accountable.

In conclusion, the overturning of Chevron Deference marks a significant change in administrative law, emphasizing the importance of elected officials in interpreting and enforcing regulations. This decision reinforces the need for accountability and public involvement in governmental decision-making processes.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!