Veriforce

Will US Supreme Court’s Overturn of Chevron Deference Help or Hurt American Employers and Employees? The United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision on June 28, 2024 to overturn a 40-year-old precedent that allowed federal government a significant leeway in the interpretation of congressional statutes has been condemned and praised by various groups and individuals around the world. Articles and social media posts have been provided with various opinions on what this ruling will do to the current regulations and how it will impact future activities by a number of federal agencies, like OSHA, EPA, SEC, PHMSA, NMFS, and others. What everyone really wants to know among other things is whether this change in legal approach going to help or hurt the employers and employees alike. In this short piece, we will explain the decision, review Chief Justice Roberts' clarification, and consider the broader implications for the employers and the employees. What is the Chevron Doctrine? It all stemmed from a narrow question of fishery management law: whether the National Marine Fisheries Service’s requirement that certain vessels pay for federal observers onboard their boats was consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. But the root issue of the case was whether the court administrating the case should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation or whether it should decide it on its own (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984)). In that case the court deferred to NMFS in its decision. This became known as the Chevron doctrine and this methodology has been used in adjudicating more than 18,000 court cases and arriving at more than 3,000 administrative decisions for the past 40 years. In courts the judicial branch deferred to “permissible” agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer – even when a reviewing court read the statute differently. What ended up happening then was that each case was resolved in favor of the government challenges. So, the bottom line was that if an employer wanted to challenge the government, the government generally won under the Chevron doctrine. What Does the June 28th Decision Do to the Previous 18,000 Cases Citing Chevron? Chief Justice Roberts indicated that the court’s decision would not require earlier cases that relied on Chevron to be overturned. Roberts wrote, “Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a ‘special justification’ for overruling a decision upholding agency action, because to say a precedent relied on Chevron is, at best, just an argument that the precedent was wrongly decided – which is not enough, standing along, to overrule the case.” Will Overturn Help or Hurt Employers and Employees? I ran out of the allowable space here, so I answer this question here - https://lnkd.in/ghWeVCvF Please comment below with your opinions #safety #Chevrondeference #Supremecourt #separationofpower

Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of fatalities in the oil and gas industry. In this free July 17 webinar, Veriforce experts will share the importance of competency-based driver training programs and tips for program improvement. https://assp.us/3zj0fAL #ad

I'm curious if you have a non-political view of the implications of two recent decisions by the U. S. Supreme Court on worker safety: In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the court  ended “Chevron deference.” Instead of deferring to federal agencies (like OSHA) expertise in interpreting non-specific language in laws, federal judges now have the power to decide what a law means for themselves. The court rejected Allstates Refractory Contractors v. Su, a case that targeted the power of the federal government to write permanent safety standards for U.S. businesses. Allstates filed the action in response to being the subject of OSHA enforcement actions, including a $10,000 fine for a worker's 2019 catwalk injury. Allstates argued that OSHA does not have the constitutional authority to set those standards, and employers do not have a duty to comply with OSHA’s standards. Should the occupational health and safety community and anyone who values physical or psychological health and safety be concerned? On the other hand, could either of these decisions be good for occupational health and safety? I'd especially love to hear from my friends who are safety professionals or attorneys. To level-set the conversation, I'd love to hear from folks regardless of their political leaning as long as it is focused on how #physicalhazards or #psychosocialhazards can and should be addressed in the workplace. This ruling and decision will impact both.