WHAT IS THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE, AND WHY SHOULD WE KEEP IT?

US Supreme Court could replace medical and scientific expertise with judges’ opinions. It’s a really dangerous idea.

An obscure case over fishing regulations may upend the way the federal government does business, and expand the jurisdiction of federal courts to weigh in on matters of which they know virtually nothing. It was argued the other day, and it seems that a majority of the Court is leaning towards ending the authority of agencies to interpret and enforce the laws as they deem necessary.

In Chevron USA v. NRDC, 467 US 837 (1984), the Supreme Court held that while a government agency must interpret a law in conformance with legislative intent, in ambiguous situations, courts should defer to the agency as long as the agency’s interpretation of the law is reasonable.

In today’s complex legal system, almost any law can be seen as ambiguous, subject to numerous and conflicting interpretations. Much of the time, the conflicts involve determinations by specialized federal agencies; since they deal with the subject matter regularly, and are staffed with experts, it does make sense that if their interpretation of a law they are supposed to apply is reasonable, it should stand.

We often think of this as occurring in scientific or technical areas: think of the FDA approving “the morning after pill,” as they deemed it proven safe under scientific standards and legal requirements. Then a federal judge in Texas, with not one day experience in…