US Supreme Court Limits on the Power of US Health Agencies

Daniel G. Aaron,Avery E. Emery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3723

IF: 11.816

2024-03-20

JAMA

Abstract:This Viewpoint describes how the overturning of Chevron deference would shift the ability to make policy decisions about public health and the environment from administrative agencies to the courts.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Implications for Public Health Regulation if Chevron Deference Is Overturned

Sahil Agrawal,Joseph S. Ross,Reshma Ramachandran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.3654

IF: 11.816

2024-03-20

JAMA

Abstract:This Viewpoint describes implications for medicine and public health if the US Supreme Court decides to overturn or narrow Chevron deference.

medicine, general & internal
The Overturning of Chevron Deference: Implications for the US Healthcare System

Forrest Bohler,Callaham Brock,Lily Bohler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09099-6

IF: 5.7

2024-10-08

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:In 1984, Chevron deference was established by the US Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , granting administrative agencies broad powers to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress. This landmark decision has fostered decades of controversy among legal scholars. Opponents argued it deprived courts of their constitutional duty and inappropriately expanded the power of the administrative state, while proponents claimed federal agencies, staffed by experts in their field, possess specialized knowledge to most effectively accomplish the goals of Congress. In June 2024, the Supreme Court's ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo effectively ended Chevron deference, altering the judicial landscape with significant implications for US healthcare. In this commentary, we discuss the various potential benefits and challenges that the US healthcare system will face in a post- Chevron landscape while also considering the ways in which clinicians will be expected to help address these obstacles.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Science in a shifting policy system

Theresa Harris,Rashada Alexander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt5684

IF: 56.9

2024-10-11

Science

Abstract:In June, the US Supreme Court overturned a 40-yearold legal principle known as the Chevron doctrine, which deferred to federal agencies on how regulations are interpreted in legal cases when the legislation enacted by Congress is unclear. Striking a blow against this precedent, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that Chevron was "fundamentally misguided" and that only the nation's courts have the prerogative to interpret the laws they administer. Judges across the United States now anticipate an onslaught of litigation seeking to overturn federal regulatory actions, and many of these lawsuits will turn on scientific evidence that guided those actions. Instead of deferring to the scientific and technical expertise of federal agencies, courts must now independently review the scientific record behind a challenged regulation for its persuasiveness, along with scientific findings produced by the litigating parties. It's too early to fully unpack the impact of overturning Chevron , but the scientific community must step forward to support the crafting of clear and evidence-informed legislation, and the use of scientific evidence in the courts.

multidisciplinary sciences
Chevron's Sliding Scale in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009)

Gregory M. Dickinson

2023-06-05

Abstract:In Wyeth v. Levine the Supreme Court once again failed to reconcile the interpretive presumption against preemption with the sometimes competing Chevron doctrine of deference to agencies' reasonable statutory interpretations. Rather than resolve the issue of which principle should govern where the two principles point toward opposite results, the Court continued its recent practice of applying both principles halfheartedly, carving exceptions, and giving neither its proper weight. This analysis situates Wyeth within the larger framework of the Court's recent preemption decisions in an effort to explain the Court's hesitancy to resolve the conflict. The analysis concludes that the Court, motivated by its strong respect for congressional intent and concern to protect federalism, applies both the presumption against preemption and the Chevron doctrine on a sliding scale. Where congressional intent to preempt is clear and vague only as to scope, the Court is usually quite deferential to agency determinations, but where congressional preemptive intent is unclear, agency views are accorded less weight. The Court's variable approach to deference is defensible as necessary to prevent unauthorized incursion into areas of traditional state sovereignty, but its inherent unpredictability sows confusion among regulated parties, and the need for flexibility prevents the Court from adopting any of the more predictable across-the-board approaches to deference proposed by the Court's critics. A superior approach would combine the Court's concern for federalism with the certainty of a bright-line rule by granting deference to agency views where Congress has spoken via a preemption clause of ambiguous scope and no deference where Congress has remained silent.

General Economics
A Major Question of Power: The Vaccinate Mandate Cases and the Limits of Executive Authority

Ilya Somin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4186139

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:In January 2022, the Supreme Court decided two major cases reviewing the legality of sweeping Covid-19 vaccine mandates imposed by the Biden Administration. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a 6-3 ruling invalidated a regulation requiring employers with 100 or more workers to compel nearly all of them to get vaccinated against Covid or wear masks on the job and take regular Covid tests. In Biden v. Missouri, decided the same day, a 5-4 Court upheld a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) policy requiring health care workers employed by institutions receiving federal Medicare and Medicaid funds to get vaccinated.Both cases addressed large-scale policies that were significant in their own right. The two cases also have important implications for the scope of executive power to set regulations (NFIB) and impose conditions on federal grants to state and local governments (Biden v. Missouri). The majority was justified in striking down the OSHA employer mandate because Congress had never clearly authorized it, and also justified in upholding the CMS mandate because it was backed by far more unequivocal statutory authorization. NFIB v. OSHA reaffirmed important constraints on the executive’s power to decide a “major question” of policy on its own, while also giving an indirect boost to constitutional nondelegation constraints on the transfer of legislative power to the White House and the administrative state. For its part, Biden v. Missouri makes clear that the executive can exercise reasonable discretion when Congress does clearly authorize it, particularly in the context of attaching conditions to federal grants to state and local governments.Part I of this article provides a brief overview of the history of the two cases and the policies they address. It is particularly notable that both were sweeping emergency measures enacted in response to the Covid pandemic, and both reached the Supreme Court on a heavily expedited basis. I also summarize the Supreme Court’s rulings. Part II defends the outcome in NFIB v. OSHA, but also criticizes key elements of the Court’s reasoning. Part III assesses Biden v. Missouri. In this case, the Court’s statutory reasoning is compelling. But the justices erred in failing to address some crucial issues related to Congress’s Spending Clause authority to set conditions on federal grants to state and local governments. Finally, part IV considers some broader implications of the two rulings. Americans across the political spectrum have much to gain from judicial enforcement of limits on executive power. The kind of sweeping unilateral authority the Biden administration claimed in NFIB could easily have been misused by future presidents of both parties. The Court’s sensible statutory interpretation in Biden v. Missouri also bodes well for the future.
The FDA in the Crosshairs—Science, Politics, and Abortion

Holly Fernandez Lynch,Aaron S. Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.2229

IF: 11.816

2024-03-25

JAMA

Abstract:In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.

medicine, general & internal
Banning abortion prevents us from providing safe care to all pregnant women

Maryl Sackeim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2459

2024-11-08

BMJ

Abstract:On 24 June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v Wade and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Following the Dobbs decision, control of abortion policies was returned to individual states. The election on 5 November further degrades hope for progress in women's health. With Donald Trump now the president-elect, a federal abortion ban is likely, and even access to in vitro fertilisation and contraception may be at risk.1Many political and moral problems exist with a male dominated court and political party deciding who can make decisions about women's reproductive autonomy. But as a healthcare professional in obstetrics and gynaecology, what concerns me most is the court's limited view of what is at stake here: the ability to keep pregnant women healthy. Abortion is completely banned in 13 states and heavily restricted in others. This removes far more than access to the narrow definition of abortion...

medicine, general & internal
Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights

Adam Gaffney,David U Himmelstein,Samuel Dickman,Caitlin Myers,David Hemenway,Danny McCormick,Steffie Woolhandler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.15578

2023-06-01

Abstract:Importance: Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated. Objective: To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Design, setting, and participants: This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023. Main outcomes and measures: For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term. Results: The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity. Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.
Calibrating Chevron for Preemption

Gregory M. Dickinson

2023-06-05

Abstract:Now almost three decades since its seminal Chevron decision, the Supreme Court has yet to articulate how that case's doctrine of deference to agency statutory interpretations relates to one of the most compelling federalism issues of our time: regulatory preemption of state law. Should courts defer to preemptive agency interpretations under Chevron, or do preemption's federalism implications demand a less deferential approach? Commentators have provided no shortage of possible solutions, but thus far the Court has resisted all of them. This Article makes two contributions to the debate. First, through a detailed analysis of the Court's recent agency-preemption decisions, I trace its hesitancy to adopt any of the various proposed rules to its high regard for congressional intent where areas of traditional state sovereignty are at risk. Recognizing that congressional intent to delegate preemptive authority varies from case to case, the Court has hesitated to adopt an across-the-board rule. Any such rule would constrain the Court and risk mismatch with congressional intent -- a risk it accepts under Chevron generally but which it finds particularly troublesome in the delicate area of federal preemption. Second, building on this previously underappreciated factor in the Court's analysis, I suggest a novel solution of variable deference that avoids the inflexibility inherent in an across-the-board rule while providing greater predictability than the Court's current haphazard approach. The proposed rule would grant full Chevron-style deference in those cases where congressional delegative intent is most likely -- where Congress has expressly preempted some state law and the agency interpretation merely resolves preemptive scope -- while withholding deference in those cases where Congress has remained completely silent as to preemption and delegative intent is least likely.

General Economics
California v. Texas: Avoiding an Antidemocratic Outcome

Jon Lucas

Abstract:The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") contains a section titled "Requirement to Maintain Essential Minimum Coverage." Colloquially known as the Individual Mandate, this section of the Act initially established a monetary penalty for anyone who did not maintain health insurance in a given tax year. But with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the monetary penalty was reset to zero, inducing opponents of the ACA to mount a legal challenge over the Individual Mandate's constitutionality. As the third major legal challenge to the ACA, California v. Texas saw the Supreme Court punt on the merits and instead decide the case on grounds of Article III standing. But how would the ACA have fared if the Court had in fact reached the merits? Did resetting the Individual Mandate penalty to zero uncloak the provision from the saving construction of Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius? This Note posits that, had the Court reached the merits, it would have found the Individual Mandate no longer met the requirements for classification as a tax under the rule relied on in NFIB. Moreover, it argues that the Court would have found the unconstitutional provision to be inseverable from the ACA insofar as it was integral to funding both the novel structure of the reformed healthcare system and the prohibition against insurance carriers denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. This examination ultimately reveals that an outright repeal of the ACA would have been antidemocratic in the face of current consensus opinion that favors the reform and highlights the impact its abrogation would have had.
What’s at stake for science in ‘abortion pill’ case

Meredith Wadman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado6440

IF: 56.9

2024-02-16

Science

Abstract:Supreme Court decision this summer could gut FDA’s authority over drugs

multidisciplinary sciences
A plea for caution: violent video games, the Supreme Court, and the role of science

Ryan C W Hall,Terri Day,Richard C W Hall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2010.0762

Abstract:On November 2, 2010, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association, with a ruling expected in 2011. This case addressed whether states have the right to restrict freedom of speech by limiting the sale of violent video games to minors. To date, 8 states have tried to pass legislation to this effect, with all attempts being found unconstitutional by lower courts. In large part, the Supreme Court's decision will be determined by its review and interpretation of the medical and social science literature addressing the effects of violent video games on children. Those on both sides of the violent video game debate claim that the scientific literature supports their opinions. Some involved in the debate have proclaimed that the debate is scientifically settled and that only people holding personal interests and biases oppose these "established truths." We review the historical similarities found in the 1950s comic book debate and studies identified from a PubMed search of the term violent video games showing both the harmful and beneficial effects of these video games. We define factors that physicians need to consider when reading and stating opinions about this literature. Opinions from past court rulings are discussed to provide insight into how judges may approach the application of these social science studies to the current legal issue. Although on the surface the case of Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association pertains only to the restriction of violent video games, it may establish principles about how medical and public health testimony can affect fundamental constitutional rights and how much and on what basis the courts will defer to legislators' reliance on unsettled science.
Following Lower-Court Precedent

A. Bruhl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2389198

2014-10-24

Abstract:This Article examines the role of lower-court precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisionmaking. The Supreme Court is rarely the first court to consider a legal question, and therefore the Court has the opportunity to be informed by and perhaps even persuaded by the views of the various lower courts that have previously addressed the issue. This Article considers whether the Court should give weight to lower-court precedent as a matter of normative theory and whether the Court in fact does so as a matter of practice. To answer the normative question, the Article analyzes and evaluates a variety of potential reasons to give weight to lower-court precedent, including reasons related to stability, constraint, and the wisdom of crowds. To address the descriptive question, the Article examines the current Justices’ voting behavior and reasoning, over a period of several recent years, in cases in which the Court resolves splits in the lower courts. The conclusions shed light on broader debates over interpretive methodology and the Supreme Court’s role as the manager of a large judicial system.

Law,Political Science
HHS Issues Revised Health Worker Conscience Rule

Karen Roush

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0001010532.15126.e4

2024-03-21

Abstract:The aim is to balance the rights of clinicians and patients.

nursing
Overcoming the Impact of Students for Fair Admission v Harvard to Build a More Representative Health Care Workforce: Perspectives from Ending Unequal Treatment

VINCENT GUILAMO‐RAMOS,MARCO THIMM‐KAISER,ADAM BENZEKRI,RUTH S. SHIM,FRANCIS K. AMANKWAH,SARA ROSENBAUM

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12718

2024-10-04

Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:Policy Points In a recently commissioned report on solutions for eliminating racial and ethnic health care inequities entitled Ending Unequal Treatment, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found a health workforce that is representative of the communities it serves is essential for health care equity. The Supreme Court decision to ban race‐conscious admission constraints pathways toward health workforce representativeness and equity. This paper draws on the National Academies report's findings that health care workforce representativeness improves care quality, population health, and equity to discuss policy and programmatic options for various participants to promote health workforce representativeness in the context of race‐conscious admissions bans.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Value of an Endangered Species

Matthew Osnowitz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v47i1.9129

2022-01-30

Columbia Journal of Environmental Law

Abstract:In the United States, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) represents the federal government’s paramount effort to protect endangered species. In no uncertain terms, the ESA prohibits harming endangered species by both private and governmental actors. Moreover, the Supreme Court determined that the ESA prevents courts from exercising their usual discretion when such actors take actions that will foreseeably result in harm to endangered species. Put simply, the ESA prevents courts from allowing harm to come to endangered species even if that harm is necessary for an immense benefit to human beings. This broad protection has been effective in preventing ecological loss in the U.S. But because of the breadth of the statute, courts must sometimes resolve disputes where harm to an endangered species is necessary to protect human health and safety. In these cases, courts have severely narrowed the ESA’s protections. Furthermore, changes in human and animal migration caused by climate change will pit human health against the welfare of endangered species far more often. Without better guidance from Congress, courts will likely continue to erode the strength of the ESA. This Note proposes expanding the ESA’s exemption process in order to forestall foundational attacks on the statute. By addressing this issue now, Congress can preserve the ESA’s core protections against increasingly problematic precedent.
Quarantine and the Federal Role in Epidemics

Michael R Ulrich,Wendy K Mariner

Abstract:Every recent presidential administration has faced an infectious disease threat, and this trend is certain to continue. The states have primary responsibility for protecting the public's health under their police powers, but modern travel makes diseases almost impossible to contain intrastate. How should the federal government respond in the future? The Ebola scare in the U.S. repeated a typical response--demands for quarantine. In January 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued final regulations on its authority to issue Federal Quarantine Orders. These regulations rely heavily on confining persons who may or may not be ill, raising serious questions about federal commitment to due process protections as well as the scope of statutory authority to impose quarantine. As the Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Salerno, "liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception." Unconstrained use of quarantines undermines both the rule of law and public confidence in government decisions in times of crisis. This article analyzes the regulations and argues for a rights-based approach to infectious disease control that also protects public health. By respecting constitutional rights, the federal government can encourage public trust and cooperation and minimize harm, both essential requirements for controlling an epidemic.
Post- Dobbs Challenges in Research and Patient Protections

Aimee N. C. Campbell,Shelly F. Greenfield

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.0598

2024-04-24

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:This Viewpoint describes the challenges for clinical research and participant protections following the US Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization .

psychiatry
Health-care workforce implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision

Claire D Brindis,Melissa H Laitner,Ellen Wright Clayton,Susan C Scrimshaw,Barbara J Grosz,Lisa A Simpson,Sara Rosenbaum,Corale L Brierley,Melissa A Simon,Yvette Roubideaux,Bruce N Calonge,Paula A Johnson,Laura DeStefano,Ashley Bear,Kavita S Arora,Victor J Dzau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00581-6

2024-06-22

Abstract:The Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which revoked the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, has impacted the national medical workforce. Impacts vary across states, but providers in states with restrictive abortion laws now must contend with evolving legal and ethical challenges that have the potential to affect workforce safety, mental health, education, and training opportunities, in addition to having serious impacts on patient health and far-reaching societal consequences. Moreover, Dobbs has consequences on almost every facet of the medical workforce, including on physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and others who work within the health-care system. Comprehensive research is urgently needed to understand the wide-ranging implications of Dobbs on the medical workforce, including legal, ethical, clinical, and psychological dimensions, to inform evidence-based policies and standards of care in abortion-restrictive settings. Lessons from the USA might also have global relevance for countries facing similar restrictions on reproductive care.
Politics v. science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation

Romany M Webb,Lauren Kurtz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.11.006

Abstract:During his campaign for president, Joe Biden vowed to "end the politics and follow the science" when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health and environmental crises. He was immediately criticized by then President Trump, who cast "listen[ing] to the scientists" as something only a fool would do, and warned that it would result in a "massive [economic] depression." It is hardly surprising that Trump would take that position. After all, the Trump administration routinely prioritized economic interests, and worked tirelessly to remove what it viewed as unnecessary regulatory burdens on economic activity. The Trump administration regularly suppressed, downplayed, or simply ignored scientific research demonstrating the need for regulation to protect public health and the environment. The Biden administration has vowed to reverse course, but faces challenges in doing so due to the widespread assault on science led by former President Trump. The Trump administration's efforts to undermine science are documented in the Silencing Science Tracker, an online database, which records anti-science actions taken by the federal, state, and local governments. Drawing on more than four years of tracker data-from Trump's election to Biden's inauguration-we show that the Trump presidency fundamentally changed how federal government agencies perform, use, and communicate scientific research. While the Biden administration has taken initial steps to undo some of those changes, it still has significant work to do to restore the role of science in federal government decision-making. Its task is made more difficult by the public distrust of science engendered by the Trump presidency.

US Supreme Court Limits on the Power of US Health Agencies

Implications for Public Health Regulation if Chevron Deference Is Overturned

The Overturning of Chevron Deference: Implications for the US Healthcare System

Science in a shifting policy system

Chevron's Sliding Scale in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009)

A Major Question of Power: The Vaccinate Mandate Cases and the Limits of Executive Authority

The FDA in the Crosshairs—Science, Politics, and Abortion

Banning abortion prevents us from providing safe care to all pregnant women

Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights

Calibrating Chevron for Preemption

California v. Texas: Avoiding an Antidemocratic Outcome

What’s at stake for science in ‘abortion pill’ case

A plea for caution: violent video games, the Supreme Court, and the role of science

Following Lower-Court Precedent

HHS Issues Revised Health Worker Conscience Rule

Overcoming the Impact of Students for Fair Admission v Harvard to Build a More Representative Health Care Workforce: Perspectives from Ending Unequal Treatment

Value of an Endangered Species

Quarantine and the Federal Role in Epidemics

Post- Dobbs Challenges in Research and Patient Protections

Health-care workforce implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision

Politics v. science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation