Much has been written about the landmark June decision where the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6 opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo (together with Relentless, Inc., et al. v. Department of Commerce, et al.), overturning the four-decades-old deference doctrine established in Chevron USA Inc. v. NRDC. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. with a concurrence by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson.

In Loper Bright, the court held agencies should no longer be given broad discretion in setting and interpreting rules for the entities they oversee. In the sea-changing ruling, the majority declared agencies do not have the wherewithal to resolve ambiguous statutes as Chevron proclaimed. The decision takes back power from agencies and gives it directly to the courts.

This change dramatically changes the landscape for health care providers who are heavily regulated and who often battle the many administrative agencies they deal with in the health care space. Specifically, providers now have to forget the last 40 years of Chevron doctrine and open themselves to a new era where agencies have substantially less power.

Some think the Chevron reversal in Loper Bright was a victory for healthcare providers everywhere. After all, if providers are often aggrieved with the morass of burdensome health care regulation, Loper Bright provides various avenues to challenge agency decision making, perhaps de novo, treating agencies as nothing more than a messenger for Congress. In other words, many like the fact the decision limits the power of agencies, not allowing them to interpret laws themselves. While, in many respects, that is true, there are also several downsides to the reversal that many are not focused on, especially for healthcare providers.

To read the full text of this article, please visit Chicago Lawyer's Website. 

Reprinted with permission of Chicago Lawyer.