What is the Chevron deference and why has it been overruled? (2024)

FAQs

What is the Chevron deference and why has it been overruled? ›

The U.S. Supreme Court held that Chevron was overruled. Writing for the six-justice majority,¹⁵ Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that judicial deference to agency rulemaking under Chevron was incompatible with the courts' fundamental duty to interpret the law.

The Court's Decision

The APA makes clear that agencies are not entitled to deference when interpreting statutes, the majority explained. However, an agency's interpretation, as reflected in a regulation or other agency action, may have some sway, the Court said.

The court decided in 1984 that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes. The idea was that if Congress passes a law where something is unclear - or there is a “gap” - it is up to an agency to fill in the gap.

Loper's Overruling of Chevron

Loper squarely overruled Chevron. The decision dramatically reduces deference to the agency and places on courts the obligation to determine fully independently whether an agency's actions are consistent with the words of the statute and intent of Congress.

In a 6-3 opinion, with the majority authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court vacated both of those cases and overruled Chevron. The Court held that Chevron was inconsistent with both the constitutional obligation of courts to say what the law is, and with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the decades-old Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute.

In the past 40 years, Chevron has been cited in more than 18,000 court decisions and more than 3,000 administrative decisions.

If Chevron Deference were still alive, the ATF could write a rule like pistol braces. If someone was prosecuted for it and believed they shouldn't have been found guilty in an ATF court, the ATF could rely on Chevron Deference during the appeal. It was a big tool that every administrative agency had in their quiver.”

The Supreme Court has never squarely ad- dressed the question. But the circuit courts have almost uniformly sug- gested that the answer is waiver. That is, when an agency fails to invoke Chevron deference during litigation, the reviewing court will assume that Chevron does not apply.

But the end of Chevron deference could be a double-edged sword for banks, according to industry lawyers, because the Supreme Court's decision will also make it easier for advocacy groups and state attorneys general to challenge rules they oppose, which would introduce more uncertainty for banks.

What could the Supreme Court's Chevron deference ruling mean for health care law? ›

The ruling means that judges will be relied upon to make technical and even scientific determinations rather than rely on the expertise of agency staff.

States. Chevron and Loper will apply only to federal agencies, not state agencies. But there may be downstream effects. For instance, many state court systems previously adopted Chevron-like deference in adjudicating challenges to state agency actions.

In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency's answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency's answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.

The Court expressly disagreed with Chevron's "presum[ption]" that "statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations to agencies."²⁴ "An ambiguity," wrote the Court, "is simply not a delegation of law-interpreting power," and courts "routinely confront statutory ambiguities in cases having nothing to do with Chevron."²⁵ ...

Chevron signs are widely used as safety devices to warn drivers of a dangerous curve by delineating the alignment of the road around that curve. Therefore, the presence of chevrons, either alone or combined with other devices, affects the level of road safety.

On June 28, the Supreme Court issued its ruling overturning Chevron. The ruling will curtail the power of executive agencies to wield rulemaking authority in interpreting silent or ambiguous statutes passed by Congress.

On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.

If Chevron Deference were still alive, the ATF could write a rule like pistol braces. If someone was prosecuted for it and believed they shouldn't have been found guilty in an ATF court, the ATF could rely on Chevron Deference during the appeal. It was a big tool that every administrative agency had in their quiver.”

NRDC won the case in a federal court, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision and ruled in favor of Chevron on the grounds that the courts should broadly defer to EPA and other independent regulatory agencies.