Supreme Court shreds Chevron doctrine in blow to agency powers

The Supreme Court on Friday shredded the administrative law precedent known as the Chevron doctrine, a move that will significantly alter the relationship between federal agencies and the courts.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts held in a 6-3 decision. The move overturned 40 years of precedent that began with the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which instructed judges to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous.

Now, judges may be able to rely on their own best interpretation of the law instead of deferring to the agencies when statutes are otherwise vague or ambiguous. The ruling makes it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life.

The ruling came from consolidated cases challenging a rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service that required the herring industry to bear the costs of government observers on fishing boats. The doctrine, established nearly 40 years ago in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, directed the courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. However, the Supreme Court’s decision signifies a major shift in administrative law.

Under the now-overruled precedent, courts utilized a two-step process. First, they looked at Congress's clear intent in passing a law and, second, whether an agency's rule was reasonably construed and not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.

Roberts wrote that because the original rule was so "determinate and sweep," the high court had been forced to "clarify the doctrine again and again."

"Our attempts to do so have only added to Chevron’s unworkability, transforming the original two-step into a dizzying breakdance," Roberts wrote.

During oral arguments in January, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas expressed particular concern over the doctrine’s effects on those subject to regulatory actions.

“Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding,” Gorsuch wrote in a concurrence to the majority's decision.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing a dissent joined by the court’s two other liberal justices, said that, with the overturning of Chevron, “a rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar,” wrote Kagan, who took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench at the high court on Friday.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, had argued in favor of retaining Chevron, highlighting its deep roots in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and the significant reliance interests built around it. However, the court’s decision dismissed these arguments, which may lead to widespread challenges to regulations previously upheld under Chevron.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The ruling may result in significant uncertainty and legal challenges as lower courts and federal agencies adjust to the new legal landscape. Although legal experts largely predicted the 6-3 Republican-appointed Supreme Court would weaken or overrule Chevron, the justices had not relied on the precedent in its rulings since 2016.

Regulatory decisions in sectors ranging from environmental protection to securities law may face increased scrutiny and litigation, as courts will now have a more active role in interpreting ambiguous statutes without deferring to agency expertise.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) championed the high court's decision, saying: "Major decision-making authority will no longer automatically be deferred to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats."

Mike O’Neill, the Landmark Legal Foundation's vice president of legal affairs, said it remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will "respect" the decision on Friday, adding that “there is still work to be done."

"Congress needs to understand its role by enacting specific laws and not defer to the administrative state to make tough decisions," O'Neill said, encouraging private litigants "to continue to fight any efforts by the Biden Administration to ignore this important ruling."