For more Animal Law Updates:
Jareb Gleckel received his J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School and his B.A.... Jareb Gleckel received his J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School and his B.A. magna cum laude from Amherst College. His academic writing focuses on the questions surrounding new food products, specifically plant-based and cell-based meat, and is available on SSRN. He is a founding editor of Oyez's newest platform about U.S. Supreme Court arguments, Oral Argument 2.0. He also writes guest columns for Justia's Verdict and performs legal research for the Animal Law Podcast. Read more about Jareb Gleckel Read More
Cases about animals rarely reach the United States Supreme Court. NPPC v. Ross—the case about California’s sales ban on certain meat products—was a notable exception. But the Supreme Court still actively shapes animal law through its opinions, in quiet but potent ways. This past term, it was for the worse. The Court landed two blows—the first, which is the focus of this month’s column, redistributes agency power and hurts the government’s ability to pass regulations, most notably environmental regulations. (The second, which I will discuss next month, deprives nonprofits of access to the courtroom.)
Have you ever heard someone deny Global warming, pointing out that it’s colder now in fill-in-the-blank place? To avoid concussions from banging my head against a wall, I’ve learned to refer to it as Climate change. It’s more comprehensive, in any case; global warming is one critical weather change among many, including extreme storms, oceanic disruptions, and droughts.
A case called Chevron v. NRDC is this year’s legal equivalent of Global warming. It’s a key element to the Supreme Court changing the regulatory state, but it’s just a piece of the bigger picture that most people are not discussing.
Chevron, in broad strokes, strengthened agencies’ ability to implement regulations. For those less familiar with the administrative state, it works like this: Congress passes statutes (e.g., the Clean Water Act) that give agencies guidelines, and then the agencies pass regulations (e.g., water-quality regulations) in line with their interpretation of the statutes. Under Chevron, courts deferred to agencies’ interpretations of relevant statutes, making it harder for industry players to challenge regulations. Agencies no longer get this benefit of the doubt, so their regulations are more vulnerable to attack. Among other agency setbacks, it will be harder now for the EPA to protect the environment.
I don’t want to discount the loss of Chevron. If you have noticed a lot of fuss about it over the last few months, it’s warranted. Chevron is one of the most cited cases in U.S. Supreme Court History, and thirty years later, the U.S. Supreme Court has done away with it. But a narrow focus on Chevron misses the forest for the trees. Specifically, in a vacuum, it is easy to chalk up the Court’s opinion to a skepticism of agency power. Agencies aren’t in the Constitution, the argument goes, so it’s time to rein them in. But a bigger picture look at the Court’s cases does not reveal a wholesale pull-back on agency power—an approach that, while unappealing to many democrats, would come with plenty of pros as well as cons. For example, agencies like the FDA and USDA inadequately enforce existing laws to protect animals, and oftentimes, nonprofits must sue to force an agency’s hand. These lawsuits have always been challenging, and an across-the-board weakening of the administrative state could have opened doors to better outcomes in these lawsuits. As it turns out, however—and despite the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle—the Supreme Court does not seem to be blanketly weakening the administrative state.
Enter Trump v. United States, which is an important and confusing case in its own right, due to its implications for (ex) presidential immunity. But most importantly to animal and environmental lawyers, it emphasizes the nearly-inviolable enforcement discretion of the executive branch . . . which includes agencies. In English, this case entrenches agencies’ power to refuse to enforce laws. The panoptic takeaway then, from this term, is an advancement of a deregulatory agenda. At center stage, the Supreme Court has diminished agencies’ ability to act. But at the same time, the Supreme Court has bolstered agencies’ ability to sit back and do nothing at all.
For more Animal Law Updates:
Easy Ways to Help the Planet:
Get your favorite articles delivered right to your inbox! Sign up for daily news from OneGreenPlanet.
Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.

Comments: