The June 28 Supreme Court decision to overturn the 40-year-old decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., known as the Chevron deference standard, has huge implications for health care and our profession. Here’s an information roundup, which we’ll continue to update as new insights emerge.
Background: The Chevron deference standard was a central and longstanding administrative law principle that deferred to federal agencies' technical expertise in interpreting laws and subsequently issuing the regulations needed to act on them.
The June 28 decision, Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, overruled this core doctrine, which not only impacts the relationship between future legislation and regulations but calls into question the legal validity of existing regulations. The decision also upends the balance of power between the three branches of government, shifting significant authority previously held by federal agencies and their specialized staff to the federal judiciary.
The ruling means that judges will be relied upon to make technical and even scientific determinations rather than rely on the expertise of agency staff. As a result, congressional lawmakers may now have mounting pressure to craft legislation much more prescriptively to avoid ambiguity that would be addressed by the courts.
APTA is providing a roundup of news related to this significant legal decision, which is likely to shake up the health care regulatory landscape for some time.
Court Cases
Challenges to Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities
May 2024
State of Kansas et al. v. Becerra et al.
20 states are suing the Department of Health and Human Services over the nursing home staffing standards rule, They argue that it violates the Administrative Procedures Act, claiming that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services exceeds its authority under the statute to set out new industry standards via rulemaking.
American Health Care Association, et al. v. Becerra, et al.
Two long-term care trade associations and three nursing homes are suing HHS in the Northern District of Texas. They also argue that CMS violates the APA and does not have the authority to override Congress’ judgement about nursing home staffing requirements under the Major Questions Doctrine, which requires agencies to have clear authorization from Congress when making decisions of "vast economy and political significance."
Challenges to Ruling on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance
May 2024
Texas, et al. v. Becerra, et al.
A group of 17 states led by Texas are suing HHS in the Northern District of Texas over the Biden administration’s new rule that adds gender dysphoria to the definition of disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs claim that HHS is trying to institute policy preferences that are not written into federal law, overstepping their authority. However, even before HHS adopted the rule, courts have held that gender dysphoria may be a disability protected by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
General Overviews
- AP: What it means for the Supreme Court to throw out Chevron decision, undercutting federal regulators.
- SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies.
Analyses of Impact on Health Care Regulation
- Akin Gump: Chevron Runs out of Gas: The Road Ahead for Health Regulations Gets Cloudy After Loper Bright.
- Fierce Healthcare: Supreme Court overrules Chevron deference, dealing blow to federal healthcare agencies.
- Foley & Lardner: What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for Federal Health Care Programs?
- KFF Health News: The Supreme Court Just Limited Federal Power. Health Care Is Feeling the Shockwaves.
- Modern Healthcare: How the Supreme Court’s regulation ruling will change healthcare.
