I like to imagine, as a college student working toward a degree, that one day my expertise in a given field will be respected. Unfortunately, I chose English and communication as my majors, so I’ve accepted that may never happen. But for those who chose environmental science, nutrition science, international studies and the like, you probably want your years of education to pay off.

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard two cases that may overturn who has control over unclear language in laws passed by Congress. In these cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, the court will decide whether or not to overturn the Chevron deference precedent.

The Chevron deference precedent comes from the legal case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In this 1984 case — no, really, that is the year it was decided — the oil company Chevron attempted to weaponize vague language to create a loophole.

At the time, the Clean Air Act had restricted states in their ability to establish new potential sources of air pollution. Chevron wanted to modify one of its current locations. Environmental groups challenged Chevron’s ability to do this and a suit followed.

The Supreme Court sided with the National Resources Defense Council, setting the precedent that the EPA had control over the interpretation and regulation of the terminology and implementation of acts that fell under their jurisdiction.

For context, most laws, by the time they are implemented, have been interpreted by the relevant agency. When courts get involved, they are effectively deciding whether or not the interpretation of a law is just or not. 

In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the EPA decided the phrase “stationary sources of air pollution” applies to factories looking to add modifications. Although modifications were not explicitly stated in the law, adding them would violate the policy and intention.

The cases that were presented before the court were both related to fisheries. Bill Bright of Loper Bright Enterprises sued because of a 2020 regulation changing the interpretation of a 1976 federal law. 

Basically, fishing boats need a federal authority on board to ensure boats aren’t overfishing. However, the 2020 regulation now requires fisheries to pay the $700 bill to have said authority on board. Bright is suing because he believes this is not fair. Relentless, Inc. is suing the Department of Commerce for effectively the same reason.

If the plaintiffs Bright and Relentless both succeed, the Chevron deference precedent would be overturned and courts would have the power to interpret unclear legal language as opposed to relevant committees. 

This can yield incredibly destructive results. I think we all expect judges to be well-versed in the law, not agriculture or commerce. If this ruling lands in favor of Bright then the numerous departments we have entirely to aid in the development and interpretation of law will become almost pointless.

This may feel like boring legal jargon, and while it’s easy to recognize how important this all is, it can also be hard to understand. But that’s how these issues fly under the radar.

Our legal system is long, complicated and frequently frustrating. It’s not fair to us as citizens that we have to rely on Roe v. Wade to keep abortions safe when the argument behind Roe v. Wade is about the right to privacy. We shouldn’t need the Chevron deference precedent to affirm governmental departments, like the EPA, should have say over laws that concern the environment.

I am especially concerned about this decision as it pertains to North Carolina. Between the Parent’s Bill of Rights passing after a veto of the Governor’s veto and Senator Thom Tillis’ recent push of the Safe and Open Streets Act — we are already a state with enough infighting within departmental, state and federal government. 

The Parent’s Bill of Rights discredits educators on a local level, and the Safe and Open Streets Act discredits entire city government’s handling of protests. The larger issue here isn’t just the lack of expert opinion, but a disruption of it all from the people who exist in between local implementation of federal laws and the creation of them.

Although the initial dispute is solely about who is paying the $700 for the federal authority, this case threatens to expand this decision into the realm of limiting agencies’ authorities. All this becomes even more frustrating when Bill Bright himself has said to the New York Times, “I can see why this case is such a political thing, … but to me, it’s not political. This is my livelihood.”

Cases like these should not be propelled to the Supreme Court to upend precedent.

According to the Center for American Progress, a ruling in favor of Bright could impact, “access to fair pay and acceptable working conditions, safe food and medications, affordable health care, clean water and air, stable financial markets, student loan forgiveness and civil rights protections.”

If the Supreme Court overturns the Chevron deference precedent, it will impact everybody. It will put massive decisions in the hands of inexperienced judges rather than experts, and it will severely limit how local governments make sense of federal laws and represent their citizens. And if none of this concerns you, the death of expertise absolutely should. What else is your college degree there to prove?