Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Chevron Doctrine No More: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Agency Authority

Client Alert

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Chevron doctrine, nearly 40 years after it first took effect.

The Chevron doctrine is a longstanding standard for decision-making that required Federal courts to defer to reasonable agency decisions where Federal law is silent or unclear. Though it historically garnered little attention, the doctrine had powerful practical effect, as it provided Federal agencies the power to publish necessary administrative rules interpreting vague or unclear Federal laws passed by Congress, essentially filling in the gaps left by Federal law. For areas of complicated Federal law like health care that require detailed knowledge and expertise, the ability of the pertinent regulatory agency to expound on Federal law served to facilitate the operations of Federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts supported the end of Chevron based on its “misguided” presumption that federal agencies have competence to resolve statutory ambiguities. That competence rests with the Federal court system, not Federal agencies, according to Chief Justice Roberts.

Following the fall of Chevron, courts will not have to accept agency expertise in their review of challenged regulations, shifting from Federal agency expertise to generalist courts’ interpretations of Federal law.

In short, Friday’s ruling will likely impede the ability of Federal agencies to implement laws passed by Congress. Though agencies’ regulations will still have the force and effect of law, there will be a new incentive to challenge these rules in a court that will not have to afford deference to agency expertise where statutes are not clear. Overturning Federal regulations will result in barriers to implementing Federal programs.

For questions regarding how this decision could impact your business, please contact BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.


Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.