It did not take long after the Supreme Court overturned the 40-year-old precedent colloquially known as Chevron, for stories to emerge about corporate lobbyists and Republican lawmakers planning to gut a wide range of employee, consumer, and environment protections.

But while the initial reaction focused almost exclusively on the opportunity for companies to weaken or undermine such safety measures, public affairs professionals are taking a more nuanced view of the path forward, focusing on the need to balance aggressive lobbying and legal challenges with stakeholder communications strategies that take a broader and more long-term view.

The so-called “Chevron doctrine” was established after a unanimous 1984 Supreme Court decision involving the energy company and its challenge to the Clean Air Act. That court ruled that judges should defer to the executive branch interpretation when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous.

But in a case heard earlier this year, a challenge by fishermen to Fishery Conservation & Management Act argued that the National Marine Fisheries Service had overstepped by requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch, and the Roberts court took the opportunity to overturn Chevron in what many observers regarded as a power grab by the judiciary branch.

The Washington Post reported the next day that corporate lobbyists were considering new legal challenges to protections that improve overtime pay for workers, prevent the pollution of American waterways, reduce gender discrimination in college athletics, and limit the fees credit card companies can charge for late payments—as well as rules governing new technologies.

Public affairs professionals acknowledge the importance of the Chevron decision, but are somewhat more circumspect about the implications.

"This is a seismic decision, and clients are currently reassessing the legal and regulatory landscape to identify which rules might need adjustment,” says Barry LaSala, partner, government relations at Avoq. “In particular, heavily regulated industries like telecom, banking, and energy are likely to see legal challenges that upend long-standing rules.”

But Carreen Winters, chief strategy officer at Mike Worldwide, highlights that “for clients in highly regulated industries, there is certainly concern about the Court’s decision,” and in particular “the idea that critical regulatory matters will be decided in courtrooms by judges who may have limited knowledge or understanding of the industries they will impact.”

The understanding that regulatory agencies are likely to have greater technical expertise than the judiciary was the underpinning of the original Chevron decision, and the reason it was supported even by conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia.

Concerns going forward fall into several categories.

Daniela Fernandez, CEO of the Sustainable Ocean Alliance—a client of New York-based public affairs firm Global Strategy Group—speaks for many environmental and other advocacy groups when she says the recent decision “threatens our government's oversight on climate-related policies, which ensures that private and public entities are working together to achieve our global climate goals."

Many of those goals, she points out, have the support of both environmental groups and major corporations, who see ongoing climate change as a threat.

“Climate advocacy groups are rightfully worried that bad corporate actors will take advantage of this major misstep. By stripping government oversight, private corporations will not be held accountable for their environmental impact at scale.”

But Winters, for one, sees more confusion, with the possibility of conflicting rulings in different jurisdictions. “The reversal of Chevron most certainly opens new pathways for activists to target companies through legal channels and also raises questions about the competitive balance between large industry leaders and new start-up challengers where regulation –and the ability to comply with it—can be a competitive factor.”

LaSale also warns that “it’s also possible that more policy issues shift to state governments, which will require more focus on multistate advocacy campaigns.”

With all that in mind, public affairs experts are advising clients to plan carefully and take a long view—and almost all see the need to balance direct lobbying and legal solutions with wider public affairs efforts..

Global Strategy Group chief executive Jon Silvan, for example, says: “We see clients reevaluating priorities and initiatives due to the uncertainties caused by this decision's impact on the policy landscape. We are advising that clients form internal teams with experts from legal, government relations, and communications—public relations and investor relations—and work collaboratively with trade associations and like-minded entities.”

Adds Winters, “Preparedness is always a good investment.  This is the time to evaluate the regulatory landscape for your company and conduct scenario planning on the types of issues that may emerge in light of this change, and align on response, both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion.

“And because every challenge also presents an opportunity, this is a great time to consider communicating about specific values, priorities, or actions that serve their constituencies that may go beyond what is required by current regulations. This might be related to things like safety that may not be a regulatory issue but make you a good employer.

“Similar considerations can be used to evaluate environmental practices, healthcare, and other employee benefits or even labor expectations."”

Finally, LaSale says, “Companies will need to invest in 360-degree advocacy campaigns that elevate their issues to policymakers, especially at a time when the bandwidth of Congressional staff will be consumed by the increased workload of a more complex policymaking process.

“With the election looming, companies should be developing plans to build relationships with incoming policymakers and regulators, solidify their existing relationships, and lay out policy agendas that map across their government relations, communications, and legal strategies.”