New Supreme Court ruling to shake up ACA regs, disability benefits determinations

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a 6-3 ruling that could have broad, unpredictable effects on how federal agencies handle everything from health and retirement benefits to efforts to fight air pollution.

The majority held, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, that the precedent set in 1984 in the case Chevron v. the Natural Resources Defense Council, which requires the courts to give deference to the actions of federal agencies except in situations in which the agencies are being unreasonable, is unworkable.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent for the three justices who opposed the ruling.

Some critics of the “Chevron doctrine” have argued that overturning it will have little effect in the real world, because the court has avoided relying on it in recent years.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has suggested that reducing the ability of the Executive Branch to overturn past regulations when the party in control of the White House changes could make the regulatory environment more stable and reduce regulation.

Relying on the Chevron ruling has forced courts to issue rulings in cases involving laws such as the Administrative Procedures Act that are clearly unfair to the plaintiffs, according to a concurring opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Kagan predicted in the dissent that the Loper will have a major effect on litigation.

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law,” Kagan wrote.

The ruling could affect U.S. Department of Health and Human Services efforts to oversee Medicare and other agencies efforts to regulate financial markets and use of artificial intelligence systems.

In some cases, federal agencies have used Chevron to justify decisions that help health plans and health insurers cut costs. HHS, for example, has used the doctrine to defend its right to let coverage issuers decide whether to include discounts from drug makers in patients’ out-of-pocket cost totals.

Some plans and insurers contend that letting patients use the discount coupons may encourage patients to use expensive, unproven treatments and drive up coverage costs.

Social Security Disability Insurance benefits

Arguments Gorsuch made in his concurrence suggest the new ruling could have an especially big effect on people using federal agencies’ administrative review systems, and especially the system that reviews Social Security or Veterans Affairs disability benefits determinations.

Gorsuch cites a case involving Thomas Buffington, a U.S. Air Force veteran, who was injured in the line of duty.

Related: DOL’s new overtime rule may face legal challenges: Should employers wait and see?

The VA used unfair rules to cut off Buffington’s benefits, and it used the Chevron ruling to block Buffington’s efforts to challenge the decision, Gorsuch wrote.