The recent decision by the US Supreme Court overturning the Chevron 1984 ruling made me think about a situation some 20 years ago. My two sister-in-laws are both doctors. One, Randy, is the head of Internal Medicine at a well-regarded hospital. The other, Raileen, runs her own pediatric practice. When Randy would take her daughter (world's cutest niece!) to the local pediatrician in their city, she would invariably call Raileen afterwords and discuss what the pediatrician had said.
How interesting! A doctor consulting with another doctor? One might think that Randy knows everything there is to know about medicine but that is not the case. As Randy explained it to me, she has deep knowledge of Internal Medicine but did everything she could in rotations and residency to avoid pediatrics. Also, she trusts Raileen as pediatrics is her wheelhouse. In other words, when Randy had questions, she knew who to call!
In the Chevron decision in 1984, the Supreme Court held that in the event a rule made by Congress is ambiguous, the agency that the rule impacts will be relied on to interpret the rule. I have always thought of this case as "In the event of ambiguity, look to the people most deeply involved in the work for guidance". This seems to be a reasonable and prudent approach. Who better to understand the subject matter than those who work in the field?
From what I have read of the Supreme Court reversal (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo), it seems the Court is saying that in the event of ambiguity, it is the responsibility of the courts to resolve issues of legal interpretation. While courts have frequently been called on to determine if a statute is ambiguous, I am concerned that this ruling opens the door to political agendas being the order of the day instead of impartial application of a rule. The courts seem to now be called on to interpret Congressional intent. I am also thinking that this might make it easier to lose sight of the end goal.
In the case of the retirement plan industry, I would think that the end goal is doing everything we can to help plan participants retire with dignity. Everything from auto-enrollment to participant education to plan matching are designed to encourage participants to save and save more. I hope that goal is not lost in this latest dust-up.