On June 28, the Supreme Court of the United States officially invalidated the Chevron deference doctrine. May it rest in pieces.
In the event that you are not familiar with the Chevron doctrine, allow me to expand on the topic. Under the Chevron doctrine, now perished after 40-some years of existence, justices were excused the tortuous task of having to personally understand complex technical arguments so long as the government-employed expert deferred to in matters of fact-finding wasn’t wholly and clearly incompetent. If you were in public service, you were right. If you were an expert employed in the private sector, you were wrong.
That’s an over-simplification of course, but it is an over-simplification of an essential truth. The Chevron doctrine was an extension of the Argument from Authority, the logical fallacy that increasingly plagues public discourse in America. The Argument from Authority supposes that one’s position, or credentials, makes one’s views more important and more likely to be correct than the views of lesser beings. My bachelor’s degree in chemistry, for example, supposedly makes me less qualified to comment on issues involving the environment and climate change than a climatologist who recently received a doctorate. My 40 years of experience in atmospheric chemistry is thus of no consequence.
One should cheerfully admit that some very smart, very sincere people choose to enter public service, and we should be thankful that they do. The flip side is that not every person who enters public service is either particularly intelligent or much invested in the “service” proposition that comes along with taking a public service position.
In this context, granting any and virtually every government expert the badge and shield of Chevron doctrine infallibility is inadvisable. And now the Supreme Court has recognized that this is the case.
Critics of this decision have and will continue to assert that getting rid of the Chevron doctrine means that big business interests will have free reign to undermine, abuse, and deceive public servants intent on nothing more than humbly exercising their skills for the ultimate benefit of all. As well-intentioned as that concern may be, I believe it does not reflect the situation.
The reality is this: Eliminating the Chevron doctrine means that justices will be forced to do their jobs when cases involve intricate technical/scientific details. Both plaintiff and defendant will have the burden of explaining the technicalities in a way that the presiding judge and jury can understand. In an increasingly complex world, that’s a bigger and bigger challenge. But the fact that the world is so increasingly complex is the ultimate argument for demanding that the justice system get smarter, rather than more simplistic.
It’s not easy to translate techo-speak into relatable legal-speak. I know because that’s a big part of my day job. Yet, while it’s not easy, it is important. It’s more than important, it’s essential. Without skilled translators, there is no way that sincerely impartial members of the justice system could make honestly impartial decisions about public policy matters that include significant technical/scientific components.
The Chevron doctrine freed willing justices from having to even try to understand the science behind the great issues of the day. Overturning the flawed policy means that the judiciary will be encouraged to think a little harder going forward. Some judges will choose not to do so. But some will embrace this brave new world of official intellectual freedom, and that’s surely a good thing.
