In 1984, the United States Supreme Court ruled that “A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous ” This ruling, which has since become known as the “Chevron doctrine,” was overturned in June 2024 by the Supreme Court in its “Loper Bright” decision, holding that when rules and regulations are ambiguous, agencies must defer to the courts, rather than the other way around.
To learn more about what the Loper Bright decision might mean for design professionals, Brett Stewart, 九色视频Design Professional’s Manager of Loss Prevention & Education, spoke with Kirstie Simmerman, Co-managing Partner in the Dallas office of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, a national law firm.
Brett Stewart: After 40 years, the Chevron decision is no longer in effect. What do you see as the overall impact of the new relationship between federal agencies and lower courts resulting from the Loper Bright decision?
Kirstie Simmerman: What the Supreme Court [SCOTUS] said is that a federal agency has no special competence when it comes to resolving ambiguities in the statutes that govern them. This is something that the federal, or “Article III,” courts should do; it's part of their purpose, according to SCOTUS. It further means that while a court can look to an agency's expertise on a particular issue, it’s not necessarily bound to whatever guidance that agency has given concerning a variety of federal statutes.
BS: Does the decision provide any exceptions?
KS: The exception is when a statute explicitly states that an agency has the authority to interpret the statute and make rules with respect to that statute. Practically speaking, I think Congress is going to be forced to either enact more specific statutes that contain more specific—and less ambiguous—language, or Congress is going to give more deference and explicitly say that certain agencies have the authority to create rules under these statutes.
BS: It sounds like many regulations that have traditionally been interpreted by government agencies may now be open to judicial interpretation.
KS: That’s one reason we’ve already seen and will continue to see all kinds of legal challenges. For example, the Eastern District of Texas vacated the Department of Labor’s [DOL’s] “white-collar exemption” rule in November 2024, finding that the DOL cannot implement salary thresholds that effectively replace the duties test, a key component of determining employee exemptions. As a result, the salary increases slated for January 2025 were not implemented; instead, the salary thresholds for the white-collar exemptions reverted to the levels required under the DOL’s previous rule.
Courts—not federal agencies—will now decide ambiguous rules and regulations.
BS: How do you see the Loper Bright ruling affecting design professionals?
KS: One example is how public accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act are interpreted. It could affect the ways sidewalks and other pedestrian access points are designed. Another example would be how engineers design roads and highways. On projects where the Department of Transportation [DOT] standards apply, you’ll have to think about whether those statutes explicitly say that the DOT has the authority to make those rules. If it doesn’t, someone challenging them could say that the DOT is overreaching and their interpretations aren’t applicable.
BS: I can see larger firms that have a regional or national reach might find that the rules apply differently depending on where their offices or studios are. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for instance, might endorse an agency’s interpretation while the Fifth Circuit Court might take a more activist approach. A firm could have a project in one city governed by a different set of DOT or Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] rules than a similar project in another city.
KS: Exactly. Take the Clean Water Act, for example. The rules the EPA has made over the years to enforce the law are suddenly open to new interpretations. That includes the amount of pollution that’s acceptable, the designated locations for disposing of certain project waste, and so on. Add in each district’s rulings on lawsuits challenging these rules and you end up with a mishmash of regulations. The same goes for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s regulations regarding development in floodplains and the handling of stormwater. Those could also be challenged.
BS: On the bright side, I suppose that if the courts strike down or significantly loosen many of these rules, it may speed up the regulatory process that often bogs down projects.
KS: I think that’s the overall goal of the Loper Bright ruling—less government. But remember, there are still plenty of state regulations, and these are not affected by Loper Bright.
BS: I imagine many lawsuits were filed soon after the Loper Bright decision came down, but it’ll take some time for these to work their way through the lower courts and courts of appeal before any will land at the Supreme Court.
KS: It’s all going to depend on how the lower courts rule and whether the losing party decides to appeal and how it takes shape from there.
BS: I look forward to speaking with you again as we learn more about how the Loper Bright decision impacts the design profession after these—and other—cases are decided.
