Justices’ reversal of Chevron doctrine places federal rules and decisions in question
By Barbara Burke
Special to The Malibu Times
The United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on June 28 in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo jettisoned Chevron deference, a judicial maxim that for 40 years had required courts reviewing administrative decisions to defer to the expertise of federal agencies when federal regulations and rulings faced judicial scrutiny. The Chevron doctrine resulted in lower federal courts usually ruling for the government when federal regulations or decisions applying them were challenged.
The Raimondo opinion — a 6-3 decision along ideological lines — places federal rules and decisions in question. In Raimondo, the court held that, under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts must “exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions,” even ambiguous ones. Now, it is the province of the courts to determine the best interpretation of a federal statute and, in doing so, the courts must use “all relevant interpretive tools,” according to the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. That phrasing presumably refers to interpretive canons employed by the courts when they review a statute or administrative regulation. Importantly, Raimondo acknowledges that a statute may contain an express delegation of authority for an agency to interpret and implement particular provisions and, according to the ruling, courts should defer to such delegations of authority, provided that the agency is properly acting within the scope of its lawful delegation.
Raimondo may assist the City of Malibu’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Federal Aviation Authority’s determinations concerning three of the newest airline flight paths that fly over Malibu. Residents living below those paths claim the airline noise causes excessive noise pollution for humans and animals inhabiting the Santa Monica Mountains.
“The Raimondo decision overruling Chevron helps the city’s appeal,” Interim City Attorney Trevor Rusin said. “We have not yet filed our opening brief yet, but I would anticipate the case will be mentioned.”
Rusin explained that the city’s court appeal seeks to alter the three flight paths, either by requiring planes to fly further out to sea before coming inland to ultimately land at LAX or by having planes fly higher.
“We recognize that the planes have to sometimes cross over Malibu and there is restricted airspace due to Vandenberg [Space Force Base],” he said. “However, we are seeking to have them come in over Malibu at a higher height.”
Rusin also stated, “We are troubled by the fact that there seems to be no penalty imposed when the planes are coming in lower.”
He also noted that “The FAA does not seem to appreciate that the reality of flights over rural areas such as here in Malibu and the Santa Monica’s is that such rural areas are low decibel areas and when flights go overhead they have a larger impact over such areas than they do over busy urban areas.”
There is precedent for challenging the trajectory of flight paths, Rusin explained.
“In cities of Los Angeles and Culver City challenged the new flight paths over their municipalities, challenging the FAA’s failure to conduct an environmental review.” Rusin noted, adding, “The court ruled for Culver City and remanded the case back to the FAA so that agency could conduct the environmental review.”
On June 6, the city filed its petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking review of the FAA’s February 20th administrative decision.
“Like every community in America, Malibu needs to be able to enjoy peace and quiet as an important part of community health and wellness,” said Mayor Steve Uhring as he addressed the city’s petition. “However, our residents, as well as the habitats and wildlife of the Santa Monica Mountains are heavily impacted by aircraft noise. I urge the FAA to work with Malibu to find solutions so we can protect our quality of life.”
Three new flight paths in and out of LAX (HUULL TWO, IRNMN TWO, AND RYDRR TWO) have been identified as having particularly strong noise impacts on Malibu generated by planes during take-off and landing. The FAA’s February decision would exclude those flight paths from further environmental considerations.
At the time of the city’s seeking appellate review, its press release stated, “The City hopes to open a dialogue with the FAA about the impacts of these flight paths on the community, the need to take the issue seriously, and to work with the city to develop flight procedures that will reduce those impacts. While that may not be achievable solely through litigation, the City hopes that the prospect of a Court review of the FAA decision will persuade the FAA to come to the table and work with the City to find mutually acceptable solutions.”
Now that the The Raimondo decision mandates that a court exercise a heightened review of appellate decisions such atthe FAA decision concerning the flight paths over Malibu, perhaps the FAA will mediate or otherwise enter into meaningful discussions with the city of Malibu. Time will tell — and, when something important happens in this arena, The Malibu Times will tell readers.