The United States Supreme Court recently overturned the longstanding doctrine known as Chevron deference. Advocacy organizations including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) worry that the ruling will limit the ability of federal agencies in the U.S. to effectively respond to challenges facing the country’s food and agriculture systems.
The decision “significantly impacts the future of our national and local food systems by limiting the flexibility of federal agencies like the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] to innovate and respond to emerging challenges,” Sophia Kruszewski, Deputy Director for NSAC, tells Food Tank.
Chevron deference was a legal precedent first established in 1984 by the Supreme Court. It gave administrative agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the jurisdiction over federal courts to interpret ambiguous language in congressional statutes. It was informed by the belief that agencies demonstrate expert-level knowledge on matters specific to their work.
But the Supreme Court’s latest decision transfers the power to determine the meaning of laws to federal judges. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan writes, “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.”
Current threats to food and agriculture systems, including decreasing pollinator populations, extreme weather events, and chemical exposure in communities and natural resources “are challenges that our federal government needs to address head on right now, and we can’t wait for decades of litigation to play out,” Allison Johnson, Senior Attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) tells Food Tank. “As far as our food system is concerned, we’re at a crucial crossroads.”
Food and agriculture advocates like Johnson anticipate that an already slow legislative process will be worsened because of the Supreme Court’s decision.
“This ruling could lead to a chilling effect on agency actions, making it harder to implement critical programs that support regional supply chains, climate resilience, and equitable access for underserved producers,” says Kruszewski.
Kruszewski explains that agencies and organizations must “reassess our strategies and resource ourselves well for the challenge to ensure federal policy and programs can continue to meet the needs of farmers and communities.”
This may lead to state and local governments assuming a more primary role in initiating food system change in the future, Johnson says. Recently, New York State passed the Birds and Bees Protection Act which prohibits the use of certain toxic neonicotinoid pesticides that harm bees and water sources. “We need more states to follow suit,” she tells Food Tank.
In the absence of the Chevron deference, Johnson argues that Congress’ next steps must be to pass a strong Farm Bill that is clear in its instruction on how to support farmers’ transition to more environmentally sustainable practices and how to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods for Americans.
Although it remains uncertain how this decision will change the role of federal agencies in food and agriculture policy, Johnson asserts that they “should continue to do their jobs, and do them well. Rules must be based on sound legal interpretation and strong science.”
Johnson hopes this ruling will awaken the public to the importance of having judges and justice “who affirm the government’s ability to enforce laws that protect our public health and the environment” in federal courts. She cautions that “our environmental laws are only as strong as the federal judges that uphold them.”
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of Claire Anderson, Unsplash
