A "legal earthquake" is set to occur with the Supreme Court's decision to reverse Chevron.

• Last week, the Supreme Court sent back nine cases to lower courts after overturning the landmark precedent known as the Chevron deference.
• The overturning of one of the most widely cited Supreme Court decisions could lead to legal upheaval across the United States judiciary, as indicated by this batch of cases.
• A report reveals that several conservative anti-regulation groups have been preparing for the post-Chevron world by planning legal challenges and lobbying efforts.

The Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent known as the Chevron deference in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo, and subsequently announced that they would be sending nine cases back to lower courts in light of their ruling.

The reversal of one of the most widely cited Supreme Court opinions could lead to legal upheaval across the United States judiciary, as indicated by this batch of cases.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan stated that the decision of the majority will result in a significant shock to the legal system.

The court's 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which allowed judges to defer to federal agencies' interpretation of statutes when language was ambiguous, was reversed. As a result, the court reduced the power of regulators and increased the role of the judiciary.

The precedent's validity was challenged, raising concerns about the outcomes of over 19,000 past federal cases that rely on it.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to foresee this outcome, stating that "the decisions of those particular agency actions are lawful."

Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Penn Program on Regulation, believes that Roberts' stipulation may not be sufficient to halt the "legal earthquake" caused by the court's ruling.

The Supreme Court shielded past agency actions, as Coglianese pointed out, but it remained silent on the agencies' past legal interpretations, leaving room for previous cases to be contested.

"Those opportunities to reopen previously closed cases are still available, and individuals may attempt to take advantage of them, according to his interpretation of the court's actions."

Seizing the moment

In light of the Loper decision, two cases were remanded to lower courts, and the plaintiffs in both cases were represented by the same lawyer, Pacific Legal Foundation.

The PLF, which filed an amicus brief in the Loper case calling for the end of Chevron, represents at least five plaintiffs whose cases could benefit from Chevron's reversal.

Accountable.US reports that the public interest law firm is among several conservative, anti-regulation groups that have been preparing for the Supreme Court's potential reversal of Chevron, a decision that limited the ability of lower courts to overturn federal agency decisions.

The group has released a new report stating that four organizations are currently planning legal challenges and lobbying efforts in light of the precedent being overturned.

The Balancing Act Project aims to establish a new regulatory framework in the aftermath of the Chevron case, while the Competitive Enterprise Institute opposes government regulation and challenges the Environmental Protection Agency's authority. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity, a Charles Koch-backed network, employed lawyers who represented the plaintiffs in Loper.

According to Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone, not only has the conservative legal movement long advocated for the end of Chevron deference, but key groups have already prepared challenges in anticipation of the ruling to gain from the new regulatory environment they will create.

She stated that they were not wasting any time in ensuring that corporations and special interests would benefit from the power grab ruling, while everyday Americans would suffer the consequences.

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron was celebrated by four organizations publicly, with conservatives viewing it as a rightful restriction of unelected bureaucrats' power.

In the case of Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the court ruled in favor of conservatives three days later, significantly expanding the rights of individuals to sue regulators, another blow to federal agencies.

The Supreme Court's rulings convey a clear message, as stated by Coglianese.

"Complaints about agency power can be heard at the courthouse through its open doors."