Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., used her time in a House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday to press Environmental Protection Agency chief Michael Regan on whether or not he would roll back "unconstitutional regulations" in wake of Supreme Court's decision to eliminate the Chevron Doctrine. That prompted Regan to correct her misunderstanding of the decision.
“I’m asking about the EPA, and I’m asking about your rogue bureaucrats that have enacted these unconstitutional regulations. Are you going to repeal them? Are you going to continue to implement them, or are you going to stop altogether? Since it’s been overturned?” Boebert demanded.
"Do you understand the ruling?” Regan shot back.
“Do you understand the ruling of the Supreme Court?” Boebert responded.
“I do, I say your question is ill-formed,” Regan answered through Boebert's cross-talk.
The "overturning" she seemed to refer to was the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, in which the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine and gave courts the final say over regulations not explicitly detailed by Congress, limiting the ability of federal agencies to interpret their statutes. The decision does not single out specific regulations as unconstitutional nor require agencies to immediately suspend regulations without a court hearing, something that appeared to confuse Boebert.
As Regan tried to reiterate that his agency would adhere to the Supreme Court's ruling, the Colorado Republican kept pressing him on repealing EPA rules, falsely maintaining that the Supreme Court mandated that he do so.
“They have been deemed unconstitutional,” Boebert insisted.
“No,” Regan said.
“Absolutely they have. This was a huge victory,” Boebert replied.
Later, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., tried to clarify the situation.
“Mr. Regan. I don’t want to spend too much time on this. But I would just like to clarify a few things for my colleague from Colorado, the Loper-Bright ruling. As you know, [it] said that the courts should not defer to agency rulemaking if a statute is ambiguous and instead the courts get to determine whether or not what the statute means. Is that your understanding as well?” he asked.
"Absolutely," Regan replied.
“Okay. So that would not require any regulations to be reversed or overturned. Correct?” Goldman asked.
“Correct,” Regan answered.
