- Posts by Philo D. HallMember of the Firm
Drawing upon nearly 12 years of experience in a series of federal government health policy positions, attorney Philo Hall brings insight into the legal, policy, budgetary, and political factors influencing federal agency ...
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable regulatory interpretation of ambiguous federal statutes under the 1984 Chevron
- In this new Loper landscape, increased engagement at all points of the federal legislative and federal regulatory process is more important than ever, especially for those in the heavily regulated health care industry.
I. What Did the Supreme Court Do? What Changed with the Loper decision?
In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding Chevron doctrine—under which federal courts would defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of their own statutes if the underlying statute was ambiguous and the interpretation was reasonable. The Court determined that this Chevron deference was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) tasking to federal courts the duty to interpret federal statutes. Although the Court overruled the original decision in Chevron, the Court went out of its way to state that it “does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology.”
As stated in an amicus brief authored by prominent advocates, and as discussed at oral arguments, health care, as one of the most regulated industries, will be significantly impacted by the end of Chevron deference.
Federal regulatory agencies may have to alter their use of existing statutes to address new concerns under the post-Chevron landscape. Federal agencies also may have to go back to Congress to address new, emerging regulatory concerns not yet considered by statute.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- CMS Issues CY 2026 MA & Part D Rate Announcement, Final Rule on CY 2026 Policy and Technical Changes to Programs, While Seeking Input on Burdensome Medicare Regulations for Rescission
- Pushback of Deadline for SNFs to Submit Significantly More Detailed Ownership and Control Information in New “SNF Attachment” to CMS Form 855A
- Podcast: Breaking Down the Shifting Vaccine Policy Landscape – Diagnosing Health Care
- Non-Competes in Health Care: 2025 Update
- Seventh Circuit Ruling Paves the Way for More Flexible Healthcare Marketing Services