The Supreme Court’s Impact on Polar Bears

In worrisome news for conservation, a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could impact polar bears and climate action in the United States for years and decades to come. The decision underscores the need for U.S. citizens to consider the impact of judicial appointees when casting a vote in presidential and Senate races. 

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court undid 40 years of judicial precedent by overturning the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That case effectively gave subject matter experts within government agencies reasonable latitude to guide policy when it came to ambiguity within laws. For example, if Congress passed a hypothetical law directing the Department of the Interior to broadly protect essential wildlife habitat on federal lands, people at agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Parks Service would use science and experts’ experience to determine the best way to do so. Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council established that the decisions those agencies made to fill in the gaps would be considered legally binding, and that if they were challenged in court, judges would defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretation of the laws. This would become known as “the Chevron deference” and worked on the logic that the experts most familiar with specific topics like pollution, wildlife, toxins, and more were not found in Congress or courts but instead in federal agencies. Therefore, the ruling determined that the agencies were best suited to figure out the nitty gritty of how laws would be implemented. 

This was good for polar bear management, the environment, and conservation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the government agency tasked with managing polar bears in and on American lands and waters, and other agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey are also heavily involved. People at those agencies make decisions all the time about how to best study and manage polar bears. As the experts, the Chevron deference meant that their choices on topics like monitoring polar bear populations and managing conflict between polar bears and people were considered final. And that’s to say nothing about specific laws like the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act that guide polar bear conservation at the highest level. While detailed and data-driven, those laws still don’t answer every question a polar bear manager might have, especially when conditions change after a law is made. With the Arctic one of the most rapidly changing places on the planet, the Chevron deference allowed polar bear experts to fill in the gaps.

And that’s only the start. Many of the government’s climate strategies were also protected by the Chevron deference. Over the last 40 years, countless decisions have been made by agencies on topics like carbon emissions, renewable energy, and climate resilience. With polar bears’ most threatened by melting sea ice caused by carbon emissions warming the Arctic, these decisions helped start us down the path towards building a better climate for polar bears and people alike.

With the Supreme Court having now eliminated the Chevron deference, federal agencies’ abilities to push forward conservation and climate action are significantly weakened. Polar bear experts no longer necessarily have the last say on polar bear conservation, and climate experts might no longer be able to take the lead in pushing forward climate action. With the Chevron deference gone, the future of polar bears is more uncertain. 

“Whether it’s wildlife conservation, climate, clean water, and air, or even the safety of our foods and medicines, the current Supreme Court just reversed 40 years of precedence that was the foundation for how much of our government and policy-making work in the United States. Its importance, or the loss of it, cannot be overstated,” says Geoff York, Polar Bears International’s senior director of research and policy.

But it’s not all doom and gloom. The Chevron deference’s overturning demonstrates the real importance of voting and the impact we can all have. Clearly, the nine Supreme Court justices have massive influence over the interpretation of U.S. law. Those justices serve for life, and it’s up to the president to appoint them with advice and consent from the Senate. While U.S. citizens don’t directly choose the Supreme Court, court of appeal, or district judges, they elect the president who does. By voting for candidates that support climate action and conservation, U.S. citizens can help ensure Supreme Court justices share those values when the time comes for new ones to be selected. That means the legacy of their votes could last decades!

We need climate action to create a safe future for people and polar bears. As the 2024 election gets closer, the loss of the Chevron deference provides yet another example of why voting for candidates who will act on climate change is more crucial than ever. Since polar bears can’t vote, it’s up to us to do so instead. 

Alex Shahbazi is an environmental policy, programs, & research consultant. He is an avid conservationist, writer, and advocate. Alex currently helps manage the Study of Environmental Arctic Change, an Arctic co-production research program, and assists Polar Bears International in their policy and advocacy work.