United States: The US Supreme Court appeared inclined to ‘significantly curtail’ the regulatory power of the federal government, which would have an impact on America’s health care system.
The crucial dispute is to be considered by the High Court through two near similar but separate cases on Wednesday. In both cases, Herring fishermen are challenging a rule requiring their companies to finance federal monitors onboard their vessels. Lower courts invoked ‘Chevron deference’ and supported federal agencies, and upheld the rule.
Significance of ‘Chevron deference’
The justices would consider whether to overturn the 40-year-old legal doctrine known as the “Chevron deference,” in which the courts have given leeway to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws or ones subject to multiple interpretations, reported Axios News.
If the doctrine is repealed, many more federal laws would face closer scrutiny from the courts and are less likely to survive, according to a report by Axios News.
Why are health experts left worried?
The case involves challenging federal control over herring fish, which has left health experts worried as it may eventually impact governmental insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid that cover tens of millions of people, public health protections, and scientific advancement.
Health experts argue that federal health agencies have the subject matter expertise and can address issues of complexity in a timely way that Congress simply does not.
The possibility of overruling Chevron is especially concerning in health care policy, where agencies must rely on their expertise to address emergencies, adapt to ever-changing technology, and improve health outcomes, said Suhasini Ravi of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, reported by Axios News.
Arguments in Favor and against the case
Three members of the high court’s conservative wing Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh- reiterated their long-held concerns about the precedent’s viability.
Critiques argue that Chevron requires judges to abdicate their responsibility to interpret the law. They also point out that there is a lack of consensus on when a statute is ambiguous enough to trigger deference to an agency and how some federal judges have explicitly criticized the doctrine.
Grouch added, “Should that be a clue that something needs to be fixed here?”
On the other hand, three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocated against overruling Chevron. They emphasized reliance upon subject-matter experts at agencies when ambiguous, complicated policy issues arise rather than having a judge attempt to draw the line, The Hill reported.
Jackson said, “My concern is that if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker.”
Kagan suggested a hypothetical situation saying whether a judge or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should be the one to decide whether a cholesterol reducer should be considered a “drug” or a “dietary supplement,” report by The Hill.
Kagan further quoted saying, “Judges should know what they don’t know.”
The liberals also pointed out the overturning Chevron would unleash a flood of litigation as people who lost cases because of the doctrine would seek to have their issues reheard.
On the Conservative side, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who posed fierce questions to both sides, also raised concerns about a shock to the system, as reported by The Hill.
Moreover, the American Cancer Society, while writing with consumer advocates, medical associations, and legal experts, pointed out that overturning Chevron would also unleash a wave of litigation against federal rules governing payments to healthcare providers that depend on the Chevron doctrine.