Summary
SCOTUS overturned the Chevron Doctrine, threatening environmental regulations and healthcare rights. Read about the possible implications for New Mexicans.
In a political month that has felt like a whole year, let’s dive back into the SCOTUS decision that was made earlier this month on two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept of Commerce. Neither of the cases have gotten the amount of coverage that the scary outcome of the decision warrants. The SCOTUS decision overturned the 1984 Chevron Doctrine which held that in cases where the law is unclear or vague (which let’s be honest, most policies passed by congress are) the courts would look to experts in federal administrative agencies to interpret and clarify those laws and apply them to their area of oversight leaving it up to judges to interpret the laws.
So,rather than trusting the actual trained and experienced experts in agencies such as the Federal Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, bipartisan appointed judges (like SCOTUS) would have the power to make decisions in areas they have zero experience in..
While the Lober Bright and Relentless cases were brought specifically to challenge fishing regulations, the decision goes beyond commercial fishing and has major environmental and even has implications in access to reproductive health. Do not be fooled, this is a MAGA judiciary power grab.
Now, without the Chevron Deference, federal agencies will have less power to interpret and adapt existing laws to new and emerging environmental challenges. The decision essentially strips away the ability for scientists, researchers, and technical experts to do their jobs in departments like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Housing & Urban Development, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and beyond. This will slow down the response to urgent environmental issues, limit the scope of regulatory actions, stall progress on key issues, and delay the implementation of critical policies that protect our public health and safety.
Federal agencies will now need to ensure their rules are explicitly backed by clear legislative mandates in order to withstand a court’s scrutiny.
One recent example of this is the recent methane regulations enacted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Department of the Interior. These regulations are groundbreaking in their effort to curb waste and pollution from oil production across the country, with huge impacts on New Mexico and our neighboring oil states like Texas. But with the loss of Chevron, it’s likely that court challenges brought against the BLM by the oil industry will be ruled not on scientific merit or based on the experience of experts, but the political whims of judicial appointees.
SCOTUS’s decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine also paves the way for ultra-conservative judges to determine the rules governing all aspects of healthcare, including reproductive health. This would give judges power to interfere in doctor/patient decisions, instead of trusting healthcare experts who understand years of data and scientific research in medicine.
Since Roe fell 3 years ago, pregnant people across the country have faced many attacks on access to reproductive health. Although the cases on medication abortion and the EMTALA case have been decided by SCOTUS, the end of the Chevron Deference puts even these modest wins at risk.
Access to abortion services in New Mexico already face threats from out of state anti-abortion groups. On top of that, rural New Mexicans are already struggling to access reproductive care and gender affirming care services. The increase in abortion funds and telehealth options has helped many, but even they are struggling.
The implications of overturning the Chevron Doctrine go way beyond bureaucratic shifts– they are a broader assault on our progressive values that prioritize expert guidance, community health, and environmental leadership.
This decision is a dangerous trend that sidelines expert opinions in favor of harrowing ideological rulings. For rural New Mexicans, already marginalized and fighting for basic healthcare access under poor environmental conditions, this judicial overreach feels like an additional burden.
This is a threat that will worsen existing inequalities, making it harder for vulnerable populations to receive both reproductive and environmental justice. This is not just about administrative law; it’s about protecting our systems that safeguard our health, rights, and the environment we live in.