WASHINGTON–Credit unions have joined with numerous other organizations and individuals in watching the Supreme Court this week for decisions that could affect deference to the Chevron Doctrine and, as a result, potentially have a bearing on NCUA and its regulations and enforcement.
The Chevron Doctrine refers to the practice of most courts to defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute and congressional intent. Decisions in two cases that have been heard by the Supreme Court in its current session– Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce–and which in which involve Chevron, could be announced this week.
‘Big Impact’
“It could have a big impact on how credit unions engage with federal agencies if the Chevron doctrine were to be struck down,” noted America’s Credit Unions’ chief advocacy officer, Carrie Hunt. “It would be easier to litigate certain issues with agencies that could create more vehicles and avenues to affect positive change. It also, though, could create more uncertainty with rules and regulations. So, there are there are two sides to that coin.”
The Chevron Doctrine has been a guiding light for courts for approximately 40 years, and Hunt said any decision(s) that affects all of that precedent would have the potential for changing the “nature of litigation and…the nature of rulemaking.”
“I think that federal agencies may take longer relative to rulemaking, because they will feel compelled to justify how they are approaching rulemaking and will try to insulate it as much as possible from any litigation,” Hunt continued. “Typically, that's going to be by going through a significant number of comment letters…”
Potential for Chaos?
After CUToday.info asked if such a scenario might create “chaos,” Hunt responded that chaos is likely too strong a word, but that there would be potential for chaos “if suddenly longstanding/ existing regulations…are being thrown out of the window. But as you know, litigation takes time and our courts are bogged down enough as it is, so it's not like suddenly this switch is going to flip and all of these rules are going to go out the window.”
An Earlier Ruling
There was potential for some chaos and uncertainty when the Supreme Court was earlier asked to rule on the constitutionality of the funding of the CFPB, Hunt added, but the court ultimately upheld how the Bureau is funded.