Overturning the Chevron Deference: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

On Friday, July 5th, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et. al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et. al. (2024) that overturned a 40-year legal precedent known as Chevron deference. In the days that followed, headlines were filled with the sentiment that administrative law had met its demise. Everyone from the National Law Review to Vogue was covering this case. The buzz surrounding Chevron deference was staggering considering how few Americans knew of the existence of the doctrine prior to that Friday. Many were left with more questions than answers: what is Chevron deference?, why was it overturned?, and why should I care? 

Chevron deference was established in 1984 in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984). In this case, a handful of environmental agencies sued because they believed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had misinterpreted, and therefore, improperly enforced a provision of the Clean Air Act. The court found that because Congress lacked a specific intention for the provision in the Clean Air Act and because the EPA’s interpretation was reasonable, it could stand as a valid enforcement. From that decision, Chevron deference, or the precedent that federal courts must give deference to agencies’ reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws and statutes, was born.  

To understand Chevron deference in application, look to AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board (1999). In this case, AT&T challenged the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for its enforcement of the Telecommunications Act. The act called for local phone companies to share their networks with competitors. What did Congress specifically mean by companies must share their networks? They didn’t specify. In this ambiguity, the FCC further defined and enforced how companies were to share networks. AT&T questioned the FCC’s authority and its definition by suing. The Supreme Court of the United States used Chevron deference to deem that the Telecommunications Act was ambiguous and that the FCC acted reasonably, so the FCC regulation should stand.  

As with many Supreme Court decisions, there were triumphs and losses. Proponents of Chevron deference argue that the precedent creates a simple way for courts to resolve issues. They maintain that the court can’t decide every single ambiguous law in a timely fashion. Furthermore, supporters claim that the interpretation of applicable laws is done by experts in the field and that Chevron deference allows federal agencies to fulfill their duty to establish rules and enforcement based on legislation. Lastly, they argue that unelected administrative judges should not have that much power. Opponents of Chevron deference contend that it contradicts the separation of powers. They claim that the precedent allows any federal agency to create any regulation that they see fit with a “get out of jail free” card when it comes to judicial review. They further elaborate that unelected agencies should not have that much power. At the end of the day, the debate boils down to whether unelected agencies or unelected judges are better suited to decide legal ambiguities in industry-specific cases and determine which party is able to better embody democracy.  

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States sided with Chevron deference opponents in Loper Bright Enterprises et. al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et. al. In the case, a group of Atlantic herring commercial fishermen sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for their enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MSA). The MSA provides that an observer may be assigned to accompany fishermen and monitor conservation efforts. The problem was that the MSA was silent on the discussion of who would pay for these observers. The NMFS required Atlantic herring fishermen to carry an observer on board to oversee conservation efforts at the fishermen’s expense. Applying Chevron deference, the NMFS forced the fishermen to pay for an observer. This decision clearly upset fishermen who had to pay upwards of $710 a day for the observer. The case made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 6-3 decision overruling Chevron, the Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to use independent judgment when deciding whether an agency has acted within the authority delegated by statute. They cited the Federalist Papers to argue that the Framers of the Constitution intended for interpretation or resolution of ambiguities to fall to the courts. 

After 40 years and with over 18,000 judicial opinions citing Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), Chevron deference is dead. What does this mean for federal agencies and administrative law? A few things. First, Congress might try to create less ambiguous laws to limit the impact of this case. However, some ambiguities are unavoidable, and Congress sometimes uses ambiguity to create flexibility in the law. Second, it’s important to note that while Chevron deference is no longer used, not every single agency regulation decided under the doctrine will be thrown out. But they can be. If someone disagrees with an agency regulation, they can sue. Now, without deference to agencies, plaintiffs are much more likely to see favorable results.  This ruling doesn’t necessarily mean that expert opinion won’t be used. Rather, it can be used, albeit with more scrutiny. Litigation in these matters is sure to rise. 

The ultimate impact from Loper Bright Enterprises et. al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et. al will only reveal itself in time.  Scholars are already speculating on the impacts to agencies like the SEC, FDA, and IRS. With hundreds of thousands of agency regulations in the crosshairs, its influence is unpredictable. Will administrative law see its demise? Probably not. However, the debate on Chevron deference and the changes that follow are certainly something to watch. 

By: Madeline Reichel, Summer Intern