Supreme Court Decision to Overturn ‘Chevron Deference’ Threatens to Disrupt Public Healthcare System

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision on the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case and its companion case, Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce. The majority’s opinion abolishes the rule of Chevron deference. 

In response to the court’s decision, the following statement was issued by: 
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society 
Cancer Action Network, ALS Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Child Neurology Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Health Law Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and Truth Initiative. 

“As leaders who share a mission to protect and advance the public’s health, our organizations are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision today to eliminate the long-standing rule of Chevron deference. As we described in our Amicus Brief, which Justice Kagan drew on in her dissent, this rule has long helped ensure that healthcare laws are interpreted and implemented appropriately. We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s healthcare and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve.

“Before today, Chevron deference protected the legal stability of public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. It ensured that laws passed by Congress were interpreted and implemented by expert federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. As our Amicus Brief noted, large health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, as well as issues related to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, are extremely complex, so it is key that decisions about how to interpret and implement relevant laws are made by experts at government agencies. Yet today’s majority opinion explicitly ends the use of this sensible doctrine.

“As leading organizations that work on behalf of people across the country who face serious, acute and chronic illnesses, as well as many people who lack access to quality and affordable healthcare, we will continue to work to ensure that healthcare laws are implemented in ways that benefit the public health.”