Nurses: High Court’s Chevron ruling a ‘direct threat’ to workers, families

NNU President Nancy Hagans – left, wearing glasses. | New York State Nurses Association

WASHINGTON —The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling stripping federal regulators of the power to write rules without judges or Congress intervening even before the regulations take effect, is “a direct threat to every American worker and family,” says National Nurses United.

That threat comes from the six-Justice Republican majority’s decision, just before the court quit for the summer, scrapping the 40-year-old Chevron deference precedent.

“Nurses regularly care for patients harmed by air pollution, cancerous products, toxic exposed food, and unsafe workplaces that may all be exacerbated by this dangerous decision. In almost every walk of life, policies crafted by experienced regulatory experts will now be increasingly likely to be struck down by the courts,” National Nurses United President Nancy Hagans said.

Chevron deference said judges should defer to agency experience and evidence behind any standard, with only two exceptions: If an agency—any agency–could not justify its rules proposals before a court, or if the agency flagrantly violated the law which established it.

The majority flipped that on its head, ruling there shall be little to no deference to the agency, leaving the fate of rules governing workers, health and safety, the environment, financiers and more, in the hands of judges, a dysfunctional Congress, or both.

Which is precisely what lawbreakers in the corporate class, including mega-executives such as Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the Waltons who own Walmart, and Starbucks’s chief stockholder and founder Howard Schultz, all want. Because tying up rules in endless congressional gridlock or before right-wing ideologues in black robes lets corporations get away with repression and exploitation.

NNU was one of many unions that blasted the High Court majority’s ruling, as did the AFL-CIO. But the nurses specifically connected the Chevron overturn to rules that affect and often protect workers and families every day.

“Far-right corporate interests have long sought to eliminate decades of public health, environmental, workplace safety, and other safety protections to increase corporate profits and control over public policy,” Hagans said after the court’s decision on June 28.

A threat to every American

“From clean air and water to the food we eat, to safer workplaces to workers’ rights on the job, this decision is a direct threat to every American worker and family.”

And it could get worse, Hagans warned, if presumed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who named three of the six justices who overturned Chevron—Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—wins again in November.

Left unsaid is that even though Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the ruling overturning Chevron, Justice Gorsuch played a special role in it. As a federal appeals court judge, he authored a blistering condemnation of Chevron. In his concurrence with the overturn, Justice Gorsuch said precedent against agency expertise pre-dated Chevron deference, too.

In the Chevron case 40 years ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council sued the big oil firm over EPA clean air rules, to force Ronald Reagan’s EPA to enforce them against it. Gorsuch’s mother, Colorado politician Anne Gorsuch Burford, was Reagan’s EPA chief then.

“The attack on regulatory agencies escalated under…Trump and his allies in Congress with their vilification of what they have branded as the ‘deep state,’ along with the expanded domination of the Supreme Court by far-right ideologues appointed by Trump,” Hagans continued, referring to the three Trump-named justices.

“A victory by Trump in November, with his pledge to replace nonpartisan staff in public agencies with loyalists, would exacerbate the consequences of the decision. It is a reminder of the importance of the election.

“Nurses have seen, especially throughout the Covid pandemic, how regulatory policies and enforcement were critical to reinforcing our ability to save the lives of thousands of patients, as well as protect nurses and other coworkers,” said Hagans.

The AFL-CIO had pointed out the smash of workers’ rights and safety by Chevron’s overturn.

It “paves the way for corporate challenges to the actions of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, and other agencies with a duty to protect workers’ lives and rights, which would allow employers to get away with retaliation, union-busting, and maintaining dangerous workplace conditions,” federation President Liz Shuler said.

NNU’s Hagans talked of the practical impact: “Nurses experienced obstacles from aggressive and lawless health care employers to our ability to advocate for our patients’ safety and win union representation and collective bargaining contracts to protect our voice and our standards.”

Chevron deference let firms challenge pro-worker NLRB rulings, including contract fights, in court, Hagans said. But then they had to prove their cases. Not any more. The justices’ ruling means corporations, using ideological judges in courts, can stop rules and NLRB decisions—however well-documented—before they even start.

NNU is demanding Congress enact legislation to reverse the decision, a prospect that is unlikely given the worker-hostile House Republican majority.

We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today. Thank you!

---

CONTRIBUTOR

Mark Gruenberg

Award-winning journalist Mark Gruenberg is head of the Washington, D.C., bureau of People's World. He is also the editor of the union news service Press Associates Inc. (PAI). Known for his reporting skills, sharp wit, and voluminous knowledge of history, Mark is a compassionate interviewer but tough when going after big corporations and their billionaire owners.