In April 2024, the Biden administration published more than 30 economically significant federal rules, the highest month since the president took office. So far in Year 4, the administration has published more new rules than roughly the Bush 43, Obama, and Trump administrations combined!

While the administration has called for reshoring and has adopted several policies that are good for U.S. manufacturing––such as the AFS-backed infrastructure investment law––this blitz of new regulatory requirements coming out of EPA, OSHA, and other agencies will negatively impact manufacturing in the United States. Because manufacturing is a leading sector for driving R&D, advancing productivity, and generating the economic multiplier that ripples powerfully through the rest of the economy, we all lose in this scenario.

Associations like AFS are not reflexively against regulation. AFS believes rules must be based on sound science, cost-benefit analysis, and detailed analysis of the practical impact that implementation will have on companies, workers, and U.S. competitiveness.

In June, a delegation of 75 AFS members visited congressional offices in Washington, D.C., educating lawmakers about the importance of metalcasting and the consequences these rules pose to the manufacturing economy. A number of the rules are already under legal challenge.

AFS and a business coalition are now urging the Biden administration to slam the brakes on this regulatory offensive until agencies can determine the effects of an encouraging recent court decision. 

On June 28, the Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine. That doctrine held that courts must uphold a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute as long as it was reasonable. In practice, it had given agencies very broad authority to develop new rules, making legal challenges exceedingly difficult.

The new ruling directs courts to exercise independent judgment when interpreting laws and clarifies that agency interpretations of laws are not subject to deference. It is now the responsibility of the court to decide if the law means what the agency claims. The decision rejected the argument that agencies are better suited to determine what ambiguities in a federal law mean.  

Following the High Court decision, agencies will still be afforded deference on policy matters but not on the interpretation of statutes––an area that is likely to see further litigation. The decision seems to reflect a return to the traditional intent of the Constitution, in which Congress makes the laws, the executive branch implements the laws, and the judiciary branch interprets the laws. 

While in Washington, the AFS delegation also advocated for (A) pro-manufacturing tax policies, (B) a crackdown on foreign trade cheats, (C) permitting reform, and (D) several bills to modernize our workforce development system. Those initiatives, coupled with a more reasoned approach to adding to the regulatory burden, constitute an agenda we all can get behind. AFS thanks all of our corporate members for helping us advance that agenda. In the meantime, AFS will keep Society members apprised of how the end of the Chevron doctrine will affect metalcasters.