- Posts by Rachel Snyder GoodStrategic Counsel
Attorney Rachel Snyder Good draws on her 11 years of legislative experience, as well as her understanding of health law and legal background, to help health care organizations create better health outcomes and modernize the health ...
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.
On October 30, 2023, President Joe Biden signed the first ever Executive Order (EO) that specifically directs federal agencies on the use and regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A Fact Sheet for this EO is also available.
This EO is a significant milestone as companies and other organizations globally grapple with the trustworthy use and creation of AI. Previous Biden-Harris Administration action on AI have been guidance of principles (e.g., the AI Bill of Rights) or have been targeted guidance on a particular aspect of AI such as the Executive Order Addressing Racial ...
On August 24, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion and order in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services(“HHS”)(“TMA III”). TMA III challenged certain portions of the July 2021 No Surprises Act (“NSA”) interim final rules proposed by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury, along with the Office of Personnel Management (the “Departments”). In a decision that significantly levels the field for providers, the District Court ruled in part ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- New Proposed Federal Legislation Takes Aim at Concerns Regarding Perceived “Looting” of Health Care Systems by Private Equity Investors
- Podcast: The Future of Laboratory Testing Just Got a Little Clearer - FDA's Final Rule on LDTs – Diagnosing Health Care
- How Does the End of Chevron Deference Change the Relationship Between the Health Care Industry, Federal Regulators, and Congress?
- Podcast: Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
- Thoughts: AB 3129 Expands Its Reach