What the Chevron Ruling Means for the League 

Since 1984 – under what was known as the “Chevron doctrine” – courts in the United States deferred to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws passed by Congress. This gave federal agencies the leniency and power to interpret unclear laws, under the idea that agencies – with expertise in applicable science, public consultation, and a depth of knowledge – know better than individual judges what implementation should look like on a given statute. Thus, in Alaska, many agency actions that have resulted in environmental protections were a result of this deference. 

In June of this year, through the “Loper-Bright” decision, this standard of agency deference was overturned. This has potentially significant implications for the League. As we continue to push for conservation in Alaska, we now must also navigate a regulatory landscape where federal agencies have decreased discretion in decision-making, where an individual judge may insert their own judgment over that of agency experts.  

While this may reduce the boldness of agencies when interpreting unclear laws, there is also a lot of uncertainty about how this will play out in the years to come. In certain cases, it is also quite possible that decreased agency discretion could play out favorably for League interests as the court grapples with how to implement the Loper-Bright decision. During this uncertain time, we’ll remain steadfast in our mission to protect these vital resources, adapting our strategies as needed to ensure that our conservation goals are achieved.