top of page
Search

How SCOTUS's Overruling Chevron Deference May Affect Propostion 65 of California?



The Potential Impact of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on Proposition 65 Compliance

In June 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) U.S.[ L.Ed.2d], altering the landscape of administrative law by reconsidering the Chevron deference doctrine. This decision, which could reshape how federal agencies interpret statutes, howeve, may not carry substantial implications for California's Proposition 65 and its enforcement by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

Overview of Chevron Deference

Chevron deference, established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) 467 U.S. 837, mandates that courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes it administers, as long as the interpretation is reasonable. This doctrine has enabled agencies lto interpret and implement regulations with significant leeway.

Key Points from Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright curtails the extent of Chevron deference. The Court emphasized that ambiguous statutes should not automatically defer to agency interpretations unless Congress has explicitly delegated such authority. This shift enhances judicial scrutiny over agency interpretations, potentially requiring more rigorous statutory analysis and limiting agencies' discretion in defining regulatory standards.

Loper's Implications for Proposition 65

However, specific citations within California Health and Safety Code sections provide safeguards that limit this impact.


Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.12(a) provides:

  • "The Governor shall designate a lead agency and other agencies that may be required to implement this chapter, including this section. Each agency so designated may adopt and modify regulations, standards, and permits as necessary to conform with and implement this chapter and to further its purposes."


Next, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25102(o) specifies:

  • ""Lead agency" means the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as designated by the Governor in Executive Order W-15-91, dated July 17, 1991."

27 CCR 25903 Appx. A affirms OEHHA's role as the lead agency for the implementation of Proposition65:

  • "The following summary has been prepared by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency for the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly known as “Proposition 65”)."

Initially, the Health and Welfare Agency was designated as the lead agency for Proposition 65. However, in 1991, the governor designated OEHHA as the lead agency for Proposition 65, see also American Chemistry Council v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 55 Cal. App. 5th 1113, Gillett v. Garden of Life, 2013 Cal. Super. LEXIS 12044. This designation was formalized in the California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Section 25102, subdivision (o) Environmental Health Advocates, see Inc. v. Sream Inc., 83 Cal. App. 5th 721, People ex rel. Brown v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1549.


OEHHA has since been responsible for implementing the provisions of Proposition 65, including the publication of the list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and the adoption of regulations to enforce the act, see American Chemistry Council v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 55 Cal. App. 5th 1113, Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Sream Inc., 83 Cal. App. 5th 721, California Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 196 Cal. App. 4th 233.


In summary, the governor's designation of OEHHA as the lead agency for Proposition 65 occurred in 1991, and this role has been codified in the California Code of Regulations.


Legislative Clarity and Advocacy:

The Loper decision might prompt California's legislature to provide more explicit statutory guidance to reduce ambiguities that courts might otherwise exploit. Legal professionals should monitor legislative developments and advocate for clear and detailed regulations that support OEHHA's authority.


Conclusion

While the Loper decision introduces a shift towards more stringent judicial review of agency interpretations, key provisions in California's Health and Safety Code help safeguard OEHHA's role in administering Proposition 65. By understanding these statutory protections and preparing for increased scrutiny, lawyers and businesses can navigate the evolving regulatory landscape effectively.


For detailed information on the decision and its implications, refer to the official text of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) U.S.[ L.Ed.2d], and consult with legal experts specializing in Proposition 65 and administrative law.



Related Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page