Implications of the Changing U.S. Regulatory Landscape

1 min read

アメリカにおける規制の変化や不確実性への対応は、世界中の取締役や経営陣が常に重要視するリスクの一つです。特に、「シェブロン擁護の原則」と呼ばれる最高裁の判決は、過去40年間にわたり当局に大きな権限を与えてきました。しかし、2023年から2024年にかけての最高裁の裁判でこの原則が覆され、アメリカでビジネスを展開する企業にとって新たなリスクが生じています。この変更に対して、企業はその影響をどう受け止め、どのように対応すべきかが問われています。

本資料では、シェブロン逆転判決による具体的な影響と、その後のアメリカの規制環境の変化について解説します。日本企業にとっても将来的に影響を及ぼす可能性があるため、注目いただきたい内容となっています。

日本語版PDF　英語版PDF

This issue of Board Perspectives discusses the Chevron deference doctrine, its origin in 1984 and its recent reversal this year and its impact, which marks a fundamental shift in power away from the executive branch to the judicial branch. It outlines potential outcomes of the Chevron reversal for U.S.-based companies and companies doing business in the United States.

There may be greater opportunity post-Chevron for companies to influence rulemaking if they can thoughtfully and convincingly make the case that the regulators are overreaching. The better way — less disruptive and less costly than litigation — to make this argument is to comment on regulatory proposals. Boards will want to ensure that their companies are actively engaging in the rulemaking process when the outcome will impact the company’s business and operations.

Companies face additional risk from the need to monitor a more complex environment, which may be more affected by court decisions than has been the case traditionally.

Companies should assess the short- and medium-term potential impact of the Chevron reversal by assessing which areas of their business and operations are more exposed to and potentially subject to judicial challenge.
On an ongoing basis, many companies will need to expand their horizon-scanning functions to track not just legislative and regulatory developments at the federal and state levels (and more broadly for multinational companies), but also in the courts. This will require added focus and potentially added investment.
The Chevron reversal may also complicate a company’s implementation of new regulations in cases where it is reasonable to conclude that the regulation may be subject to judicial challenge. Companies will need to balance the affirmative requirement to comply with the new requirement, and the cost thereof, with the possibility that the regulation will be reversed or modified. This will highlight the need for an agile and adaptable regulatory change program.

While the full impact of the Chevron reversal will unfold over time, what is clear already is that businesses used to dealing with regulatory frameworks shaped by agency interpretations must now adapt to a more uncertain regulatory environment determined by the courts. Directors should keep this shifting environment in mind when discussing regulatory matters with management.

(Board Perspectives — Issue 179)

Listen to our Board's Perspectives podcasts, which provide practical insights and guidance for new and experienced board members alike.