News

Chevron Doctrine’s Day in Court

January 22, 2024. 

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard arguments in two cases that could drastically change how much power federal regulators have to interpret statutes. 

Why It Matters: The so-called Chevron Doctrine comes from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Doctrine essentially says courts should defer to an executive agency’s or regulator’s interpretation of an ambiguous federal statute. The doctrine itself is a two-part test:

1. Is the statute ambiguous? If yes, go to step 2. 
2.  Is the agency’s interpretation of the statute reasonable or permissible? If so, the court accepts it. 

The Big Picture: Opponents of the Chevron Doctrine have argued that it cedes too much power to the executive branch in interpreting vague statutes. 

• They argue that courts should determine what ambiguous laws mean, without regard to how the executive branch reads it. 
•  In recent years, Republicans have proposed legislation that would repeal the doctrine. 

Yes, But: Supporters of Chevron argue agencies are better equipped than a court to interpret ambiguous laws. Some point to technical expertise as a policy reason for deferring to this interpretation. 

Over the years, case law has narrowed the applicability of Chevron, though the doctrine remains an often-cited and potent force in challenges to various regulations. Relatedly, the major questions doctrine in the West Virginia v. EPA case established that broad grants of authority by Congress to regulators do not extend to very significant issues, unless Congress specifically authorized it. 

What They’re Saying: After last week’s oral arguments, Supreme Court observers think Chevron’s days are numbered. Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog summarized the dynamics in an article recapping the cases:

What’s Next: The Court’s opinion is expected by the end of June. While the odds seem tilted to the doctrine being overturned, how the Court replaces it could have vast ramifications.

• Cautious Regulations: Regulators may be more careful to follow the plain statutory text if their judgment will weigh less in court.
• More Regulation Litigation: Less deference to regulatory interpretation could pave the way for easier and more successful challenges to new and recent regulations. These challenges could come from litigants who think the regulation went too far and those who think the regulation did not go far enough.
• Your Results May Vary: If courts do not have to defer to an agency interpretation, judges will have more free reign to decide what a particular statute means and whether the regulation complies with it. With 94 federal district courts and as many as 677 judges, some fear a patchwork of regulation could emerge if different federal courts come to alternate readings on the statutes.

News Archive