WASHINGTON, DC – Today, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling along ideological lines that overturns a landmark 40-year-old precedent that has empowered federal agencies to protect public safety and promote economic growth – so-called Chevron deference – U.S. Senator Jack Reed issued the following statement:

“Yet again, the Trump Court has sided with special interests over average Americans.  Rolling back Chevron upends a 40-year legal precedent that the Supreme Court has applied 70 times and the lower courts have applied 17,000 times.  

“This ruling gives free rein for judges to substitute their own views in place of nonpartisan, evidence-based rulemaking.  At the stroke of a pen, any lower court judge, with no subject-matter expertise on the policy at hand, could invalidate sensible administrative policies that have been adopted after extensive public input and feedback.

“This is not a workable system.  The largest economy in the world needs predictable rules of the road.  But this decision undermines regulatory certainty that is important to economic growth.  

“I don’t think many Americans want judges to make decisions about their health, their safety, and consumer protection, but that’s what the Trump Court has made the new law of the land.

“Even worse, the federal government’s power to perform the most important functions set out in the Constitution is now at risk, including protecting public safety, promoting economic growth, and upholding individual rights. 

“That means dirtier water and air, weaker rules against financial fraud, higher costs for healthcare, and more dangerous conditions for workers.  The federal government will be less able to effectively respond to emerging challenges, from climate change to artificial intelligence.  

“This ruling tilts the playing field in favor of special interests over the American people.  The Supreme Court has gifted regulated companies an effective veto over the rules that govern them.  That is wrong.  

“Trump and his Republican allies engineered a Court majority in order to throw out critical laws and precedents that have been on the books for decades.  That is not a conservative approach.  That is not ‘calling balls and strikes.’  That is not respecting precedent.  Instead, this is activist policymaking that will court chaos and disaster.”