The U.S. Supreme Court will in January hear oral arguments challenging the “Chevron deference,” regarding a 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. vs. National Resources Defense Council, which essentially assumes federal agencies are the experts on defining undefined terms written into law by Congress, or determining Congress’ meaning.

Attorney Karen Budd-Falen said the case will play into the Snake River dam situation as “truly game-changing in administrative law.”

“Unfortunately, Congress writes legislation so broad that you can interpret it to mean just about anything you want it to mean, and that’s on both sides,” she said. 

The court has always deferred to whatever a federal agency says as a result of the Chevron ruling.

The Supreme Court will examine whether to put litigants on more of an even playing field, instead of automatically assuming an agency is right, Budd-Falen said.

In the case of the Snake River dams, if NOAA or NMFS released a study calling for dam breaching, the court would not automatically defer to that finding.

“I could come in and say either, ‘The study was wrong,’ or ‘They interpreted the law wrong,’ or whatever legal argument I wanted to make,” Budd-Falen said. “It would be on the same playing field, rather than just, ‘Well, it’s the federal agency — they win.'”