By Faith Farley, AACRAO Intern, Government Relations
The Supreme Court, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturned the Chevron Doctrine in a 6-3 ruling on Friday, June 28, 2024. This 40-year precedent gave federal agencies the ability, as subject experts, to interpret laws that were otherwise ambiguous. For example, if Congress passes a law that bans “workplace hazards” but doesn’t define what this means, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) previously had the authority to interpret what constitutes a “workplace hazard.” Much of what federal agencies do is based on this authority, from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) limits on carbon emissions to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ability to regulate tobacco products.
Implications of the Ruling
The Court’s decision will have wide-reaching impacts across all federal agencies that will likely take years to fully understand and address in courts. Importantly, this ruling does not apply to past agency actions and regulations, meaning that existing regulations remain in effect unless challenged anew.
Department of Education
Like all federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Education’s regulations will be open to legal challenges moving forward. Many individuals, including lawmakers, are concerned about the potential implications. Ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, Bill Cassidy, wrote a letter to the Department inquiring about how it plans to comply with the Court’s decision. In his letter, Sen. Cassidy raised concerns that the new Title IX rule and the SAVE student loan forgiveness program could be interpreted as overstepping the Department's authority post-Chevron.
Title IX Rule
The new Title IX rule relies on the Chevron Doctrine, with the Department arguing in favor of expanding the definition of key terms such as sexual harassment and gender identity safeguard. This regulation is already facing dozens of lawsuits, including two federal injunctions, and has been blocked in some form or another by a large number of states. Without the Chevron Doctrine, the Department’s ability to defend its interpretation of these terms is significantly weakened, making the future of the Title IX rule highly uncertain.
SAVE Student Loan Forgiveness Program
The Biden Administration’s income-driven student loan repayment plan, known as SAVE, is already facing two lawsuits and is also more vulnerable without Chevron. The program's legal foundation rested on the Department's interpretation of ambiguous statutory language related to student loans. With Chevron overturned, these interpretations are now open to increased scrutiny and legal challenges, potentially delaying or even halting the program’s implementation.
Financial Value Transparency (FVT) and Gainful Employment (GE) Regulations
Financial Value Transparency (FVT) and Gainful Employment (GE) regulations, which went into effect on July 1, 2024, are also at risk. These regulations are based on Congress’ ambiguous phrasing that refers to collegiate programs that “prepare students for gainful employment.” The Department's ability to define and enforce these terms without the Chevron Doctrine is now in question. Legal challenges to these regulations are expected, which could lead to delays or modifications in how these rules are applied and enforced.
Broader Regulatory Impacts
The overturning of the Chevron Doctrine will have wide-reaching implications for the authority of federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education. All of the Department’s regulations, some of which are already facing legal challenges, will be under increased scrutiny. This increased scrutiny means that the process for implementing new regulations will likely become slower and more cumbersome. Federal agencies will need to rely more heavily on clear congressional mandates and less on their own interpretations of ambiguous statutory language.
What it All Means
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine marks a significant shift in the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. For the U.S. Department of Education, this change means that existing and future regulations will face heightened legal challenges and scrutiny. The result will likely be slower implementation and limited new regulations as the Department adjusts to a new legal landscape where its interpretative authority is significantly curtailed.
Stay Informed
Make sure to stay informed on this evolving issue by signing up for AACRAO’s weekly newsletter, Transcript. Keeping abreast of the latest developments will be crucial for higher education professionals as they navigate the implications of this landmark decision.