Health Law Advisor

Key Takeaways

• Federal courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable regulatory interpretation of ambiguous federal statutes under the 1984 Chevron
• In this new Loper landscape, increased engagement at all points of the federal legislative and federal regulatory process is more important than ever, especially for those in the heavily regulated health care industry.

I. What Did the Supreme Court Do? What Changed with the Loper decision?

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding Chevron doctrine—under which federal courts would defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of their own statutes if the underlying statute was ambiguous and the interpretation was reasonable. The Court determined that this Chevron deference was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) tasking to federal courts the duty to interpret federal statutes. Although the Court overruled the original decision in Chevron, the Court went out of its way to state that it “does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology.”

As stated in an amicus brief authored by prominent advocates, and as discussed at oral arguments, health care, as one of the most regulated industries, will be significantly impacted by the end of Chevron deference.

Federal regulatory agencies may have to alter their use of existing statutes to address new concerns under the post-Chevron landscape. Federal agencies also may have to go back to Congress to address new, emerging regulatory concerns not yet considered by statute.

New from the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast: In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

This ruling has significant implications for employers and other entities in the health care and life sciences industries, as it changes the way courts are likely to interpret and apply regulations issued by federal agencies.

On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys George Breen, Stuart Gerson, Rob Wanerman, and Paul DeCamp analyze the fallout of this monumental decision, discuss what it means for entities seeking to challenge ambiguous statutes and regulations, and assess how to proceed from here.

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  This term, the Supreme Court of the United States is set to rule in a Medicare reimbursement case that has sparked a fresh look at the historical deference often granted to agencies and whether it should remain, be modified, or even be overruled.

Attorneys Stuart Gerson, Robert Wanerman, and Megan Robertson discuss why Chevron deference matters to health care industry stakeholders and what aspects of deference arguments should be in focus as these cases progress.

The Diagnosing Health Care podcast series examines the ...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently clarified that the “motivating factor” standard of causation applies to Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation claims, instead of the “but for” causation standard applied in Title VII and ADEA retaliation cases. The “but for” standard is more onerous for the plaintiff, who must demonstrate that discrimination or retaliation was the determining factor for the adverse employment action, not just one reason among others. The less burdensome “motivating factor” causation standard requires the ...