12 Days of Legal Updates – Day 1 – 2024
During the summer of 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States released their decision for the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned a legal precedent referred to as Chevron Deference.
Prior to this decision Chevron deference was a legal principle where courts deferred to a government agency’s interpretation of a law it enforces, as long as the law is unclear and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. It comes from a 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, and is used to let agencies apply their expertise to complex issues. Over time this precedent had been used as a tool for federal agencies to essentially rewrite vague laws in ways that have resulted in substantial abuses of power.
Since this decision was released one of the most common questions we get from our members and supporters is how this decision will affect our legal work.
The short answer is that this decision will affect our work a lot.
But, it isn’t exactly clear what the full long-term effects will be. We often compare it to recovering a fumble on the 1-yard line. The turnover changes the dynamics on the field, but there is still an entire field of play to cover to determine how game-changing this precedent will be.
We did include references to Loper Bright in our Motion for Summary Judgment in our challenge to the Moab closures.
We also recently announced that we have hired Bella Eldridge to join our team as a full-time staff attorney.
On her first day on the job, we had her do a deep dive into a recent decision that had been released by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals a week prior to her start date. The case was called Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Authority, and this is a summary of what the Yale Journal on Regulation released on this decision:
The D.C. Circuit recently ruled against the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regarding its authority to issue certain rules under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court found that CEQ overstepped its statutory authority in updating NEPA regulations, which aim to streamline environmental reviews and limit public input. This decision invalidates key provisions of the CEQ’s revised rules, emphasizing that CEQ cannot reinterpret NEPA to grant itself new powers without explicit Congressional authorization
This ruling has significant implications for federal environmental policy and the regulatory process, as it underscores the limits of executive agencies in redefining statutory mandates through administrative rulemaking.
In other words, this panel of judges is saying that the rule making authority that agencies rely on for their environmental analysis doesn’t exist.
This is what the unraveling of Chevron Deference looks like.
But here’s the catch, this case was brought by the Marin Audubon Society. They didn’t make any arguments about the validity of CEQ NEPA regulations, but their case almost unwittingly substantially undermined a bedrock law that most environmental lawsuits depend on. Their case was argued on January 19, 2024 – months before Chevron Deference was overturned.
With Donald Trump set to take office in a few weeks, we are likely to see a flurry of environmental lawsuits that will challenge the decisions of the federal agencies. This means that the post-Chevron Deference era will be defined by lawsuits brought by environmental groups. As we saw in the Marin Audubon Society case, it is likely that many of these lawsuits will result in precedents that undermine the regulatory house of cards that environmental lawyers are using to shut down our public lands. But we can also expect to see them wise up and pick better cases that they shop out to friendly judges to limit the impact.
This is why it is crucial that organizations like BlueRibbon Coalition increase our activity in the courts. We are currently preparing for 2025 to be one of the busiest years we’ve ever had in the courts. Our legal team is already working full-time to tee up several important legal challenges. We are also hoping to hire a second staff attorney if we are able to hit our end of year fundraising goal.
Bella’s first assignment was to respond to the Bureau of Land Management’s motion to dismiss our administrative appeal to several trail closures in eastern Idaho. In our response we cited the new precedent created by the Marin Audubon Society decision.
Once she completed that response, we also sent a certified letter to the Bureau of Land Management office in Price, UT that is rushing to complete the travel plan for the San Rafael Swell. We believe they could close almost 1,000 miles of routes in the Swell using authorities that were declared invalid by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There is no reason they need to rush this plan out the door during the waning days of the Biden Administration in an environment where the federal judiciary is calling into question their authority to create the plan in the first place.
As we observe the tectonic shifts that are happening in the legal system, we are confident that we can keep a smart team of lawyers busy with tasks ranging from letters to pin down agency positions to preparing and filing major litigation challenges in federal court. We currently have solid legal standing for over a dozen strategic actions that will define the post-Chevron Deference legal system.
The need for additional resources is the only thing holding us back.
