Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced the Stop Corporate Capture Act (SCCA) alongside senators like Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker on Tuesday. The legislation would undo the Supreme Court’s decision last month to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which allowed federal agencies to reasonably interpret ambiguous laws

The 40-year-old legislation deferred to agencies — rather than courts — when it comes to their own statutes and rules, but only within reason. The Chevron doctrine was created by a 1984 Supreme Court decision in the case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The ruling determined that the Environmental Protection Agency provided a reasonable interpretation for the Clean Air Act when it decided that “stationary source” referred to whole industrial plants, bypassing regulations to modify them.

It was overturned in June with a 6-3 vote.

Democrats said its overturning undermines federal regulations for worker safety, a clean environment and consumer protections by allowing judges to legally challenge these rules placed by executive agencies. The gun, tobacco, and timber industry pushed for the new ruling.

The new act, which was originally introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal in 2021, intends to reform the regulatory process to prioritize “scientific and public integrity” and reduce large corporations’ influence on policy making.

“Major legislation enacted must also be implemented and enforced by the dedicated, nonpartisan experts at our public agencies to become a reality,” Jayapal said in a statement. “Too often, this process is driven by corporate lobbyists and special interests who know exactly how to make these processes benefit their bottom lines at the cost of public interest.”

The SCCA would streamline White House regulation reviews within 120 days, allow public agencies to reinstate rules struck down by Congress and reform cost-benefit analysis to include non-quantifiable metrics like human dignity and child safety.

The act would also expand public participation in the rulemaking process by creating an Office of the Public Advocate and require agencies to respond to citizen petitions containing 100,000 or more signatures.

It would also require all legislators to disclose conflicts of interest, make all research available for independent public review and financially penalize corporate interests that submit false information.

“The decision … transferred an inordinate amount of power to judges who lack the profound understanding needed to craft federal regulations,” said Earthjustice Vice President of Policy and Legislation Raúl García in a statement. “This bill rightly remedies an egregious power grab from the U.S. Supreme Court while creating a more transparent and equitable federal rulemaking process.”

Organizations sponsoring the bill include: Physicians for Social Responsibility; the Union of Concerned Scientists; Public Citizen; the Economic Policy Institute; Rise Economy; and the Sierra Club.

Conservatives and corporations have long been against rules like these, arguing that it gave non-elected officials too much power and preferring to diminish federal powers.

Some progressives pointed out a silver lining in striking down the Supreme Court’s ruling. Immigration law, which relies heavily on agencies’ interpretation of federal rules, could “lead to less draconian interpretations” with the rule’s demise and impede aggressive enforcement efforts, according to the New Republic.

Though courts may not side with migrants each time, they would not be bound to these agencies’ interpretations.