The Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine marks a significant shift in administrative law, aligning with former President Donald Trump’s deregulatory goals. The ruling, delivered on June 28, 2024, in the consolidated cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, effectively ends the practice of federal courts deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal regulatory agencies and the scope of their authority.
Chevron deference, established by the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., provided a two-step process for courts to review agency interpretations of statutes. The first step required courts to determine whether Congress had directly addressed the issue in question. If Congress’s intent was clear, that was the end of the matter. If the statute was ambiguous, the second step required courts to determine whether the agency’s interpretation was reasonable and not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.
For decades, Chevron deference allowed federal agencies to interpret and implement statutes with considerable autonomy, enabling them to create regulations on a wide range of issues, from environmental protection to healthcare and immigration. Proponents argued that this deference was necessary for efficient governance, as agencies possessed the expertise and technical knowledge required to navigate complex regulatory landscapes. However, critics contended that Chevron deference infringed on the separation of powers by allowing agencies to wield legislative and judicial authority, thus undermining the role of the judiciary.
The Trump administration was particularly vocal in its opposition to Chevron deference, viewing it as a tool that enabled federal overreach and excessive regulation. Trump’s judicial appointees, including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were selected in part for their skepticism of Chevron. Gorsuch, for instance, had previously described Chevron as a “judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty,” and Kavanaugh had expressed a desire to “rein in” the doctrine to ensure a more neutral and impartial rule of law.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference is seen as a victory for those who advocate for a more limited role for federal agencies. By requiring courts to rely on their own interpretations of ambiguous statutes, the ruling shifts the balance of power away from agencies and back to the judiciary. This change is expected to lead to increased judicial scrutiny of agency actions and potentially more challenges to regulatory decisions.
The implications of this ruling are significant for the future of federal regulation. Without Chevron deference, agencies may face greater hurdles in implementing new regulations, as their interpretations of statutes will be subject to more rigorous judicial review. This could slow down the regulatory process and make it more difficult for agencies to address emerging issues in a timely manner. On the other hand, it may also lead to more consistent and predictable interpretations of statutes, as courts will no longer defer to agencies’ potentially shifting interpretations.
The decision also raises questions about the future of other forms of judicial deference to agency interpretations. While Chevron deference was the most well-known and widely applied form of deference, there are other doctrines, such as Auer deference, which compels courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. The Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn Chevron may signal a broader shift away from judicial deference to agencies, potentially leading to further changes in administrative law.
In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, legal scholars and practitioners are grappling with its implications. Some argue that the decision will lead to greater accountability and transparency in the regulatory process, as agencies will need to provide more robust justifications for their actions. Others worry that it will create uncertainty and hinder the ability of agencies to respond to complex and evolving challenges.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference is a landmark moment in administrative law, reflecting a broader ideological shift towards limiting the power of federal agencies. For the Trump administration and its supporters, the ruling represents a significant step towards achieving their deregulatory goals. For others, it raises concerns about the future of effective governance and the ability of agencies to fulfill their regulatory missions.
As the legal and regulatory landscape continues to evolve, the full impact of the Supreme Court’s decision will become clearer. What is certain, however, is that the ruling marks a profound change in the relationship between the judiciary and federal agencies, with far-reaching consequences for the future of administrative law and regulatory policy in the United States.
Source: Ballotpedia, SCOTUSblog, The New York Times
