Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, on Monday sent letters to all federal agencies under his committee’s jurisdiction asking how they will comply with the ruling and how they plan to implement laws “as Congress intended.”
The June 28 ruling overturned a 40-year precedent known as Chevron deference that said courts should defer to agencies in legal challenges over their regulatory or scientific decisions. Instead of agencies having the final say based on their expertise, now courts will decide what Congress intended when it passed a particular law.
“For too long, Chevron deference allowed unelected bureaucrats, insulated from political accountability, to exercise power that exceeds their authority. Such unfettered power is a perversion of the Constitution,” Cassidy said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision helps return the role of legislating back to the people’s elected representatives.”
The ruling could have seismic ramifications for health policy. Agencies will likely be much more risk-averse, and there will likely be a flood of litigation aimed at rolling back agency actions.
Cassidy sent letters to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Education, Department of Labor, Food and Drug Administration, National Labor Relations Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Employee Benefits Security Administration.
“Given your agency’s track record, I am concerned about whether and how [each agency] will adapt to and faithfully implement both the letter and spirit of this decision,” Cassidy wrote.
He cited specific examples of agency interpretations, like HHS exploring the possibility of using “march-in” rights to seize patents of high-priced drugs that were developed using taxpayer money.
“Exercising march-in rights on the basis of a product’s price directly conflicts with congressional intent,” Cassidy wrote.
He also took issue with EEOC issuing regulations extending protections under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to women who seek abortions. It was an example of the agency “inserting its own abortion politics into the law,” Cassidy wrote.
