After Chevron: The Uncertain Future of Environmental Policy and Agency Authority

By: Emily Siguenza

Since its 1984 ruling, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense[1] had taken a large role in the federal government. The ruling explicitly stated that if Congress has not directly addressed the matter or its intent is unclear, it is reasonable for the court to rely on the agency’s interpretation, as Congress delegated policymaking responsibilities to that agency.[2] The Chevron doctrine permitted agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to implement and enforce environmental regulations, including air quality standards and emissions limits, without judicial interference.[3] For forty years, the Chevron doctrine provided stability and efficiency in environmental rulemaking by deferring to the EPA’s interpretation—that was until the 2024 ruling of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.[4]

The Loper Bright court unequivocally stated that, under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court is not required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law merely because a statute is ambiguous, thereby overruling the 1984 Chevron decision.[5] Following the Loper Bright ruling, the EPA and other federal agencies have faced growing challenges in implementing new policies and enforcing existing regulations.[6]

Corporate Response

Without the Chevron doctrine, courts will now engage in independent statutory interpretation rather than deferring to agency expertise, which may result in inconsistent rulings that weaken environmental protections.[7] Given the current political climate, the EPA’s proposed climate and air regulations, including those under the Clean Air Act, will increasingly be subject to judicial interpretation.[8] Companies that were once required to follow strict air pollution rules may now challenge those regulations in court, arguing that the agency exceeded its statutory authority.[9]

Specifically, oil and gas executives stand to benefit from this shift, as reduced deference to agency interpretations allows for greater corporate intervention in environmental rulemaking.[10] Due to President Trump’s expressed desire to increase domestic energy production and eliminate regulations that restrict oil, gas, and electricity production, companies have begun adjusting their business plans. BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron have announced plans to reduce their renewable energy investments and focus more on increasing oil and gas production.[11] French company TotalEnergies and Norwegian firm Equinor have already scaled back their low-carbon energy investment plans.[12] Overall, funding for renewable energy sources such as hydrogen, biogas, biofuels, electric vehicle charging, and carbon capture and storage will be reduced by more than five billion dollars.[13] Because agencies must now adhere more strictly to the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, businesses will have more opportunities to challenge and delay regulations they find unfavorable.[14] This procedural hurdle may slow down the implementation of new environmental protections, granting industries more leverage in shaping policies that align with their economic interests rather than environmental priorities.[15]

Final Thoughts

The long-term effects of this decision remain uncertain, but it is likely to have lasting implications for environmental law, business regulation, and the balance of power between the federal government, courts, and corporations.[16] Courts have clarified that, while agency legal interpretations are no longer entitled to deference, they may still carry significant persuasive weight, especially when based on the agency’s area of expertise or when the interpretation has remained consistent over time.[17] As the legal framework continues to evolve, it will be crucial to assess how courts continue to handle challenges to environmental regulations and how businesses adapt to a more decentralized and unpredictable regulatory environment.

[1] 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

[2] Id. at 866.

[3] Amy Howe, Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron, Curtailing Power of Federal Agencies, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2024, 12:37 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/.

[4] 603 U.S. 369 (2024); see Howe, supra note 3.

[5] 603 U.S. at 395-96.

[6] See Jennifer Hijazi, Trump Overhaul of Air Regulations Faces Post-Chevron Uncertainty, Bloomberg L. (Mar. 14, 2025, 12:34 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trump-overhaul-of-air-regulations-faces-post-chevron-uncertainty.

[7] See id.

[8] Hijazi, supra note 6.

[9] See Jennifer A. Dlouhy & Ari Natter, Trumps Mounts Sweeping Attack on Pollution and Climate Rules (1), Bloomberg L. (Mar. 12, 2025, 4:41 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-to-reconsider-legal-basis-of-us-climate-change-rules.

[10] Id.

[11] Martina Igini, These Companies Are Backtracking on Climate in Bow to Conservatives, Earth.Org (Mar. 18, 2025), https://earth.org/these-companies-are-backtracking-on-climate-in-bow-to-conservatives/.

[12] Id.