Ramifications of the Supreme Court’s Latest Term for Health Regulation
Ramifications of the Supreme Court’s Latest Term for Health Regulation
The Supreme Court ended its 2024 term with major rulings affecting federal agencies. SHP’s Michelle Mello writes in a JAMA viewpoint that while these rulings have critical ramifications for health agencies, the outlook is more complex than it might appear.
Stanford Health Policy’s Michelle Mello writes in a JAMA Viewpoint: “The US Supreme Court punctuated its term ending July 2024 with major rulings affecting federal agencies. The Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, jettisoning so-called Chevron deference toward agencies’ interpretations of statutes, and other cases have stirred doubts about whether agencies can continue to make bold, effective health policy. These rulings have critical ramifications for health agencies, but the outlook is more complex than it might appear.”
Mello, who is also a professor of law at Stanford Law School, and her colleagues continue: “Loper Bright held that except where statutes give interpretive discretion to the executive branch, courts `under the [Administrative Procedure Act] may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.’ Instead, courts must independently determine the `best’ interpretation.
“Although that ruling garnered top headlines, other June 2024 decisions arguably rival its importance,” write Mellow and her fellow law school professor Anne Joseph O’Connell, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Their other co-author is Lee A. Fleisher of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine.