VIDEO: On Senate Floor, Hirono Raises Alarm About Pending SCOTUS Chevron Doctrine Decision

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke on the Senate floor about the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Loper Bright Enterperises v. Raimondo, which threatens to upend the federal regulatory system by eliminating the Chevron doctrine. In her speech, Hirono laid out the disastrous impacts overturning Chevron could have on everyday decisions that federal agency experts have to make, jeopardizing the regulatory system of our country.

“To be clear, this case is not about the so-called major questions doctrine, but about the sorts of day-to-day decisions that federal agency experts have to make when implementing programs to protect the American people,” said Senator Hirono. “It would empower the hundreds of individual federal judges to overrule carefully-considered rule-making decisions by agency experts, turning a consistent regulatory framework into a chaotic mess of conflicting opinions.”

The Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old doctrine—with roots that go back to our country’s founding—is to a functioning federal government. The Chevron doctrine recognizes that Congress delegates authority to technical experts at federal agencies, so that those agencies can effectively and efficiently implement federal laws in their areas of expertise, in line with Congressional intent. As a result, courts have generally deferred to reasonable interpretations by administrative agencies when the law is unclear or ambiguous.

The Chevron doctrine was originally favored by conservative judges who viewed it as a check against judicial activism. In recent years, however, many conservatives have turned against the Chevron doctrine, viewing it as an impediment to their efforts to consolidate power and enable far-right judges to legislate from the bench. Now, the same far-right ideologues that fought to end Roe are all in for ending Chevron as well.

“Eliminating Chevron now, after more than four decades, would sow chaos and confusion on agency actions moving forward, as well as the nearly 18,000 federal cases that have been decided based on the Chevron doctrine,” continued Senator Hirono. “And even if the Court stops short of fully eliminating Chevron, significantly narrowing it will have much the same effect. Overturning Chevron is yet one more component of the far-right's broader agenda to capture the courts, advance their conservative ideological agenda, and hollow out our regulatory system.”

A transcript of Senator Hirono’s floor speech is below and video is available for download here.

M. President, I rise today deeply concerned that the far-right majority on the Supreme Court is preparing to sow further chaos in our country. Any day now, the Court is expected to rule on two cases pertaining to the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old doctrine—with roots that go back to our country’s founding—that is critical to a functioning federal government. 

The Chevron doctrine is pretty simple—it recognizes that Congress delegates authority to technical experts at federal agencies, so that those agencies can effectively and efficiently implement federal laws in their areas of expertise, in line with Congressional intent. As a result, for nearly four decades, courts generally have deferred to reasonable interpretations by administrative agencies when the law is unclear or ambiguous. 

In fact, before 1984, lower-court judges were criticized for overriding agency experts and imposing their own policy views—that is why the Court handed down the Chevron decision in the first place. The Chevron doctrine was originally favored by conservative judges, including the conservative majority on the Supreme Court during the Reagan Administration, who viewed it as a check against judicial activism. In recent years, however, many on the right have turned against the Chevron doctrine, viewing it as an impediment to their efforts to consolidate power and enable far-right judges to legislate from the bench. Now, the same far-right ideologues that fought to end Roe are all in for ending Chevron as well. 

Justice Gorsuch, one of the most outspoken critics of Chevron, has gone so far as to call for the Court to give the doctrine “a tombstone no one can miss.” And the so-called Alliance Defending Freedom, the same group leading the charge to eliminate access to mifepristone, as approved by the FDA, has called for the Chevron doctrine to go, asserting without evidence that it allows agency experts to “impos[e] personal political agendas that Congress has not authorized.”

To be clear, this case is not about the so-called major questions doctrine, but about the sorts of day-to-day decisions that federal agency experts have to make when implementing laws. Overturning Chevron would undermine these sorts of everyday decisions, and in doing so, jeopardize the regulatory system on which much of our country, and our economy, rests. It would empower the hundreds of individual federal judges to overrule carefully-considered rule-making decisions by agency experts, turning a consistent regulatory framework into a chaotic mess of conflicting opinions.

At its core, this case is about who should be making policy decisions on issues that affect our lives – subject matter experts, or federal judges?

Who gets to determine the safety of the air we breathe – environmental scientists at the EPA or federal judges?

Who decides whether or not a new drug is actually effective – doctors at the FDA or federal judges?

Who determines whether nursing homes are meeting safety standards – elder care experts at HHS or federal judges?

With no disrespect to our federal judges, they lack the expertise to make these kinds of decisions. And while Congress enacts legislation at a high level, it recognizes that the institutional capacity and expertise to implement legislation exist within executive agencies. That is why federal agencies exist—to implement informed, evidence-based regulations that provide a level of regulatory certainty and stability.  

Eliminating Chevron now, after more than four decades, would sow chaos and confusion on agency actions moving forward, as well as the nearly 18,000 federal cases that have been decided based on the Chevron doctrine. And even if the Court stops short of fully eliminating Chevron, significantly narrowing it will have much the same effect.

Overturning Chevron is yet one more component of the far-right's broader agenda to capture the courts, advance their conservative ideological agenda, and hollow out our regulatory system. The Court will hand down a decision in this highly important case in a matter of days. And we will see whether this case becomes yet another cautionary tale for a Court that has been busy overturning decades of precedent and sowing chaos left, right, and center.

Thank you and I yield. 

###