In chemistry, a chain reaction is a rapid sequence of events in which the products of one reaction become the reactants of another. US courts of law can be similar. Take a New Jersey fishing company by the name of Loper Bright Enterprises, which in 2020 filed a lawsuit arguing that the National Marine Fisheries Service could not force it to pay for monitors that would accompany crews on trips and watch for overfishing. Lower courts sided with the agency. Their rulings relied on the Chevron deference doctrine, named for a 1984 case that directed courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation when the law is ambiguous.
The US Supreme Court undid all that last week when it sided with Loper Bright, overturning the Chevron doctrine in a ruling with implications far beyond the health of fisheries.
Recent litigation over the EPA’s limits for six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water could also be affected by the Supreme Court ruling. “It’s a fine needle to thread between what is a purely scientific determination and what is a statutory interpretation,” says Tim Whitehouse, executive director of the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and former senior attorney at the EPA. “Those lines are not always clear.”
