{"id":326174,"date":"2025-02-23T15:47:46","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T21:47:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=326174"},"modified":"2025-02-23T11:07:08","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T17:07:08","slug":"supreme-court-ruling-bureaucratic-power-impact-abortion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/supreme-court-ruling-bureaucratic-power-impact-abortion\/","title":{"rendered":"How a Supreme Court ruling that limits bureaucratic power could impact abortion"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On June 28, 2024, by a vote of 6-2, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled<\/a> a 40-year-old legal precedent known as the Chevron Doctrine in\u00a0Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/em>. That decision essentially limited the power of federal bureaucrats \u2014 which some law experts speculate could impact abortion-related court decisions moving forward.<\/p>\n

Noah Feldman, Bloomberg Columnist and professor of law at Harvard University, explained<\/a> the Chevron Doctrine, which was from a 1984 decision<\/a> in the case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council <\/em>(emphases added):<\/p>\n

The basic idea of the Chevron principle was that, when a federal statute is ambiguous, the agency charged by Congress with applying the statute should take a first crack at interpreting the law. Courts would then defer to the agency\u2019s interpretation so long as it was reasonable<\/strong>\u2026 <\/em><\/p>\n

From the start, the legal difficulty with Chevron was that it made agencies, not courts, into the most important interpreters of law<\/strong>\u2026 In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts<\/a>, the conservative majority has now officially ripped away that veil of modesty and replaced it with direct supervisory power.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court’s ruling noted, “Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to ‘permissible’ agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer\u2014even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently.”<\/p>\n

It also explained that “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act] requires\u2026 [C]ourts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”<\/p>\n

Laura Hernandez, Senior Counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), wrote<\/a> of Chevron:<\/em> \u201cInterpreting ambiguous federal statutes that are administered by an agency requires the courts to exercise independent judgment. Chevron<\/em>\u00a0hamstrings judges from exercising that judgment by allowing administrative agencies to adopt any interpretation that is marginally reasonable \u2014 even if it does not reflect the best view of the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n

What this means is that now, federal agencies are no longer the exclusive gatekeepers for interpreting federal law. This ruling by the Court could have major impacts on abortion law with regarding to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Title X, Hyde, and beyond. After the Loper<\/em> decision overturned Chevron<\/em>, pro-abortion advocates immediately expressed concern.<\/p>\n

Pro-abortion groups react with alarm to the Court’s decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

KFF.org speculated at the time<\/a> that the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/a><\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce<\/a> <\/em>cases, “decided jointly… will shape how courts review legal challenges to all regulations that interpret issues where a federal law is ambiguous or silent, including health care.”<\/p>\n

Jocelyn Frye, President of the pro-abortion National Partnership for Women & Families, called the decision a “power grab,” writing<\/a> in a press release:<\/p>\n

… [T]he Court is paving the way for far-right extremists to tie up and litigate away our reproductive rights and more in courts for years to come… [and]… could open the door for ultra-conservative judges to dictate the rules that govern contraceptive coverage, prohibit federally funded family planning providers from referring patients for abortion care and expand religious exemptions to undermine our rights and access to care, amidst a host of other potential threats. <\/em><\/p>\n

At the same time, the Supreme Court continues to evade any meaningful ethics reforms that would shield its own members from the corrupting influence of special interests.<\/em><\/p>\n

Reproductive Freedom for All, formerly known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote<\/a> on X, “Overturning Chevron is just another way for extremists to undermine our federal government and therefore democracy in general.” The judiciary is a fundamental part<\/a> of democratic governments; in the U.S., it is one of three branches of the federal government, put in place with a system of checks and balances.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

We need court reform direly. Overturning Chevron is just another way for extremists to undermine our federal government and therefore democracy in general. Without court reform, the Supreme Court will continue to dismantle our government, setting the stage for a Trump takeover.<\/p>\n

— Reproductive Freedom for All (@reproforall) June 28, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n