U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Chevron doctrine could have major impacts in Alaska

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a major decision on Friday that could have wide-ranging impacts in Alaska by restricting the regulatory power of federal agencies.

In Alaska in particular, the ruling has important implications in areas such as resource development, fisheries and the environment, areas where state leaders often clash with federal agencies.

The court’s 6-3 ruling on Friday overturned its own 1984 landmark decision, known as the Chevron deference. For 40 years, the doctrine has instructed lower court judges to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous.

The federal government had argued agencies can resolve ambiguities in federal law because they have subject matter expertise. Critics contended that requiring deference to agencies was unconstitutional because it interfered with the independent judgment of the courts.

The state of Alaska filed an amicus brief, along with 26 other states, in support of overturning the Chevron deference. Attorney General Treg Taylor said Friday that federal agencies have used the doctrine as “a shield” — effectively expanding their power at the expense of judges.

“By getting rid of Chevron, the Supreme Court has restored the separation of powers. Under our system of government, it is a court’s job to offer a final interpretation of the law, not the job of federal agencies,” Taylor said in a prepared statement.

Attorney Anna Crary, a partner at Anchorage law firm Landye Bennett Blumstein, was reviewing the court’s decision on Friday. She said it could effectively affect any federal agency decision in Alaska that is then challenged in court.

“One thing is clear is that this is a significant shift in the legal structure of our country,” she said.

Conservative advocacy groups, influenced by billionaire Charles Koch, led the effort to overturn the Chevron deference. The Washington Post reported that many environmental groups wanted to retain the doctrine with concerns that overturning it could weaken the federal government’s ability to combat climate change.

Alex Petkanas, clean energy and climate program manager at the Alaska Center, said that for decades, experts like scientists have made key decisions on technical issues and how to implement environmental regulations. Friday’s decision could upend that, he said.

“We really need experts to make the decisions, and not for generalist judges to be inserting themselves,” he said.

The federal government plays an outsized role in Alaska compared to other states. More than 60% of land in Alaska is managed federally. Court challenges of agency decisions approving or denying resource development projects are common.

Attorneys expect more Administrative Procedure Act challenges of how agencies make decisions and issue regulations, such as the Biden administration’s decision on Friday to block the contentious Ambler Road project.

[Biden administration’s rejection of Ambler Road project draws both condemnation and praise in Alaska]

Gov. Mike Dunleavy — along with U.S. Sens. Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski, all Republicans — welcomed Friday’s Supreme Court decision. Dunleavy said the state of Alaska has fought since statehood for management of lands, fish and game and resource development, among other areas.

“Our legal rights as a state should not depend on who’s in office — those rights either exist or they don’t,” he said. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today at least gives us a fair chance to fight back and secure the rights we were promised.”

But who serves in the White House could still be key, attorneys say. A federal agency under a future Trump administration could issue a decision approving a resource development project in Alaska. If that is then challenged, a judge may not then automatically defer to the agency’s approval if the underlying federal law is ambiguous.

“It cuts both ways,” Crary said.

Bridget Psarianos, an attorney with environmental group Trustees for Alaska, has been involved in cases challenging the Willow project and the proposed King Cove Road. She, too, was reviewing the decision on Friday.

“It’s really hard to predict what the implications of this are going to be,” she said.

The Chevron deference is referenced fairly frequently in federal cases in Alaska, notably in endangered species cases. The doctrine was cited in a long-running dispute between the federal government and state of Alaska over whether to list polar bears as a threatened species.

Last month, the National Marine Fisheries Service launched a yearlong study to determine if king salmon in Alaska should be classified as an endangered or threatened species. If the agency determines king salmon are endangered, Crary said she thinks the Supreme Court’s ruling will mean “it’s probably easier for somebody to challenge that decision.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the court’s majority opinion, made clear that overturning the Chevron doctrine would likely not apply retroactively. But Friday’s Supreme Court decision could see more appeals of lower court decisions in Alaska, attorneys say.

In November, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the federal government had not overstepped its authority by allowing an emergency hunt in Southeast Alaska during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gleason cited the Chevron deference when siding with the Federal Subsistence Board’s decision to allow the hunt. The district court’s ruling has since been appealed by the state of Alaska to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.