The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made a noteworthy expansion to its docket, adding a second case that challenges a long-established principle known as the Chevron deference. This doctrine is essentially a guide to lower courts, instructing them to default to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws.
This case, yet unnamed, joins an almost identical case brought forth by a group of herring fishers from Rhode Island. These two cases, which the highest court in the land has confirmed will be heard in tandem, have the potential to reshape the interaction between the judiciary and federal administrative bodies.
The Chevron deference, which originated from the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., has been a cornerstone of administrative law for almost four decades. If the Supreme Court were to overturn this principle, it could drastically change the landscape of federal regulation and administrative review.
Given the significance of these cases, they will undoubtedly be closely watched by corporations, law firms, and organizations that interact extensively with federal agencies or rely on their interpretation of the ambiguous regulations. Their outcomes could have extensive implications for how businesses navigate their relationship with the government.
For more information on this developing story, please visit the original article on Law360.