Robert Metzger Analyzes Impact of SCOTUS Chevron Reversal on Cybersecurity Governance for Mission Critical Podcast

The U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) repeal of the Chevron doctrine could result in more clarity and consistent application of the rules. That’s according to Rogers Joseph O’Donnell shareholder Robert S. Metzger, who discussed potential implications for infrastructure and cybersecurity rulemaking in the wake of the SCOTUS decision in a podcast interview with Mission Critical.

In the Aug. 1 episode, Metzger discussed how the court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Enterprises could impact the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA) and other cyber regulations.

Previously, under a two-part test known as the Chevron doctrine, courts dealing with ambiguous laws were required to defer to the interpretations of the federal agencies administering them. But now, it’s the judiciary’s responsibility to determine the meaning of the law. 

While this shift has generated plenty of confusion about the future of regulatory enforcement, Metzger explained that courts are well-equipped to handle this responsibility as they regularly make technical judgments involving complex, national issues. 

“The judge isn’t just making this decision on her or his whim,” Metzger told host Drew Spaniel. “They’re going to be making it after a thorough advocacy process, where the judge will have plenty of things to consider and plenty of positions to weigh. And moreover, even if one judge says, ‘I hate that statute and that objective of that regulatory agency,’ that’s far from the end of it.”

Metzger reasoned that the ruling likely won’t have a significant impact on most pending cybersecurity regulations — provided they are grounded in a solid underlying statutory rationale.

Listen to the podcast here.