A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to overturn Chevron deference has raised significant concerns among food and agriculture advocates. Organizations like the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) are worried about the broader implications of this ruling, which they believe could severely limit the ability of federal agencies to address pressing issues facing the nation’s food systems.

Sophia Kruszewski, Deputy Director for NSAC, highlights how this decision could curtail the flexibility of agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to innovate and respond to emerging challenges. She remarks that the ruling “significantly impacts the future of our national and local food systems,” underscoring the potential fallout for federal efforts to address the rapidly evolving food and agricultural landscape.

The Chevron deference doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in 1984, allowed administrative agencies, including the USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to interpret ambiguous congressional statutes based on their expertise. This approach was rooted in the belief that these agencies possess the technical knowledge necessary to handle complex, industry-specific regulations. But with the recent decision, the power to interpret such laws shifts from these expert agencies to federal judges.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, strongly criticized the ruling, asserting that the Court was essentially claiming “exclusive power” over any regulatory issue, even those heavily driven by policy or expertise.

For advocates of food and agriculture systems, this shift could have dire consequences. Threats like declining pollinator populations, extreme weather events, and chemical exposures are challenges that require immediate federal action, argues Allison Johnson, Senior Attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). She emphasizes that food systems are at a crucial juncture, and slowing the already cumbersome legislative process could have devastating effects on the country’s ability to respond.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, food and agriculture advocates warn, could further delay or hinder the implementation of essential programs, particularly those aimed at supporting regional supply chains, building climate resilience, and ensuring equitable access for underserved producers. Kruszewski of NSAC notes that this ruling might even hinder federal agency actions, making it harder for them to push forward critical initiatives.

Allison Johnson believes that Congress now has an important role to play. She argues that a strong, clear Farm Bill is needed to guide agencies on how to support farmers transitioning to sustainable practices and ensure that Americans have access to affordable, nutritious food. With the Chevron deference gone, it is more important than ever for legislation to be precise in its directives to ensure that federal agencies can continue their work effectively.

Ultimately, Johnson warns that “our environmental laws are only as strong as the federal judges that uphold them.” She hopes the ruling will raise public awareness about the significance of having judges who affirm the government’s role in safeguarding the environment and public health.