07/03/2024 | News release | Distributed by Public on 07/03/2024 10:43
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled a cornerstone of contemporary administrative law when it determined, in a 6-3 ruling, that the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was wrongly decided.
In Chevron, the Supreme Court considered whether an Environmental Protection Agency regulation was consistent with the term "stationary source," as used in the Clean Air Act. 467 U.S. at 840. In resolving that question, the Court announced a two-step approach ("Chevron Doctrine") to evaluate whether a governing statute permitted a particular agency action. Id. at 842-43. First, a court must consider whether Congress, by statute, had "directly spoken to the precise question at issue." Id. at 842. If congressional intent was clear from the relevant statute, then that intent would control the court's assessment of the agency's regulation. Id. If the relevant statute was silent or ambiguous as to congressional intent, however, then the court would defer to the agency's "permissible construction of the statute," even if the court thought there was a better interpretation. Id. at 843.
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court held this step-two approach could not be reconciled with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq. (APA), which the Court concluded "requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous." No. 22-1219, 2024 WL 3208360, at *1 (U.S. June 28, 2024). Thus, the Supreme Court's 40-year precedent in Chevron is now dead. In its wake, courts must now turn to the longstanding precedent in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944), when determining the best interpretation of a particular statute. Under Skidmore, when engaging in independent statutory interpretation, courts may accord persuasive, but not controlling, value to an agency's informed judgment regarding how to implement a statute. 323 U.S. at 140.
A detailed overview of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper can be found here. The purpose of this article is to discuss the potential impacts that the fall of the Chevron Doctrine may have on public procurements generally and government contractors specifically. In short, the end of the Chevron Doctrine appears unlikely to alter drastically the regulatory requirements to which government contractors are subject and which contractors routinely accept as part of their government contracts. Contractors are unlikely to expend the time and resources to try to overturn age-old regulatory requirements for which contractors have already developed compliance frameworks. Instead, it is more likely that we will see ad hoc challenges to agency regulations when a particular contractor needs to make such a challenge to preserve or ensure a remedy. In addition, contractors may target new regulations to prevent new regulatory requirements from ever taking effect.
Potential Impacts on Government Contractors
It is not yet clear to what extent, if any, interested parties will take advantage of the fall of Chevron to challenge existing government contracts regulations as contrary to their underlying statutes.[2] The Federal Circuit has previously held that "the provisions of [the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)] are entitled to Chevron deference." Brownlee v. DynCorp., 349 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Garrett, 6 F.3d 1547, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1993); United States v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 927 F.2d 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). And at least one U.S. Court of Appeal has concurred. See Cont. Mgmt., Inc. v. Rumsfeld, 434 F.3d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court decision that Small Business Administration and FAR regulations were entitled to Chevron deference). That deference could explain why contractors have not frequently relied on APA challenges to the FAR: the odds of success were relatively low. With Chevron deference dead and buried, however, contractors may be encouraged to revisit regulations of questionable origin that impose continuing burdens.
One specific area to watch is the burgeoning field of cybersecurity regulation. Given the broad reach of recent proposed rules, contractors may be interested in challenging cybersecurity regulations as contrary to statute. Whether contractors could successfully challenge such regulations, however, is an open question. For example, the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA) expressly directed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the statute, to publish a final rule, and to issue regulations to amend or revise the final rule. 6 U.S.C. § 681b(b). Such express delegation would appear to indicate congressional intent to defer to CISA as to how to implement CIRCIA. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229 (2001) (noting "a very good indicator of delegation meriting Chevron treatment [is] express congressional authorizations to engage in the process of rulemaking or adjudication that produces regulations or rulings for which deference is claimed"). Consequently, although a court may not blindly defer to CISA regarding how to implement CIRCIA, as it might have done were Chevron still good law, its review may be limited only to determining whether the CISA engaged in "reasoned decisionmaking" within the confines of its discretion. See Loper, 2024 WL 3208360, at *2 ("And when the best reading of a statute is that it delegates discretionary authority to an agency, the role of the reviewing court under the APA is, as always, to independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress subject to constitutional limits. The court fulfills that role by recognizing constitutional delegations, fixing the boundaries of the delegated authority, and ensuring the agency has engaged in reasoned decisionmaking within those boundaries." (cleaned up)).[3]
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. § 1707, governs the publication of the FAR and agency FAR supplements. It requires notice and comment for any regulation that has a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the federal government or that has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.[4] Government contractors should continue to harness the notice and comment process to influence agency rulemaking and, in particular, highlight areas where agencies may be overstepping their statutory authority.
Conclusion
The ripple effects from the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loper remain to be seen, but there is good reason to believe Loper will not have a significant disruptive effect on government contracts, at least in the short term. Over time, however, Loper could fundamentally alter the manner in which agencies implement federal statutes, including those pertaining to government contractors. Only time will tell.
[1] The "respect" required under Skidmore is often referred to as "Skidmore deference," although the Loper majority avoids that terminology in its opinion. 2024 WL 3208360, at *51.
[2] As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, various states successfully challenged the legality of Executive Order 14042, Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors, on the ground that the Executive Order's vaccination requirements exceeded the authority conferred upon the President by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. These states prevailed in their challenges based on the Major Questions Doctrine, which was an exception to the Chevron Doctrine and precludes agencies from addressing matters of "vast economic and political significance" without clear statutory authorization to do so. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 716 (2022).
[3] Of course, any delegation of authority by Congress must still comply with the Nondelegation Doctrine, which provides that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers unless it provides an "intelligible principle" that directs the delegee how to conform its actions with legislative intent. Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160, 165 (1991) ("Thus, Congress does not violate the Constitution merely because it legislates in broad terms, leaving a certain degree of discretion to executive or judicial actors. So long as Congress lays down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power." (cleaned up)).
[4] The APA requires notice and comment rulemaking for non-FAR regulations promulgated by executive agencies. 5 U.S.C. § 553.