TheCorporateCounsel.net

Following the demise of Chevron, there’s been an ongoing debate about the impact the end of this 40-year-old doctrine will really have on the lawmaking process, administrative state, and federal court system. It appears that many Senate Democrats are among those who think the end of Chevron could have disastrous consequences. Earlier this week, numerous Senate Democrats introduced the Stop Corporate Capture Act (SCCA), which had first been introduced in the House in 2021. Touted as a bill to “codify Chevron deference,” this press release from Senator Warren’s team highlights that the bill would do much more:

Protect Chevron Doctrine

– Codify Chevron deference, allowing expert agencies to conduct rulemaking in line with their reasonable interpretation of their authorizing statutes.

Modernize and Reform the Regulatory Process

– Streamline the White House’s review period for regulations, creating a 120-day time limit for review.
– Authorize agencies to reinstate rules that are rescinded by Congress through the Congressional Review Act.
– Reform agencies’ cost-benefit analysis to emphasize public benefits of a rule, including non-quantifiable benefits like promoting human dignity, securing child safety, and preventing discrimination.

Empower and Expand Public Participation in Rulemaking

– Create an Office of the Public Advocate to help members of the public participate more effectively in regulatory proceedings.
– Strengthen agency procedures for notifying the public about pending rulemakings.
– Provide the public with greater authority to hold agencies accountable for unreasonable delays in completing rules.
– Require agencies to respond to citizen petitions for rulemaking that contain 100,000 or more signatures.

Increase Transparency and Protect Independent Expertise in Rulemaking

– Require all rulemaking participants to disclose industry-funded research or other related conflicts of interest.
– Require any submitted scientific or other technical research that raises a specified corporate conflict of interest be made available for independent public review.
– Bring transparency to the White House regulatory review process by requiring disclosure of changes to draft rules during that process and the source of those changes.
– Require agency officials to provide justification when the regulatory review process ends with a rule being withdrawn.
– Establish financial penalties for corporate special interests that knowingly submit false information during the rulemaking process.

– Meredith Ervine