Recent Supreme Court oral arguments in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has resulted in speculation about the future of administrative law in the United States. The discussion at the heart of the legal matter revolves around the Chevron doctrine, a guiding principle in administrative law for over four decades.
The Chevron doctrine has historically provided a framework for how courts handle administrative agencies’ interpretation of statutes they administer. But, if sentiment during the oral arguments is indicative of the Court’s leanings, it might seem that this long-standing principle may be overturned. This potential decision holds significant implications, as it could lead to a state of disarray for numerous administrative agencies.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, during the argument, highlighted this concern, stating that overturning the Chevron deference would be “impractical and chaotic.” Yet, observing the prevalent vibes at the Supreme Court, it seems that the overturn of the doctrine might be a possible outcome, as reported by Vox.
Elie Mystal, The Nation’s justice correspondent, posted on his Twitter account a melodramatic but poignant comparison, posing an open question to administrative law professors akin to becoming the next Radio Shack—a once-successful company that has become nearly irrelevant. His statement captures the prevalent concern that the pillars of administrative law could be profoundly shaken.
The development of these oral arguments and subsequent decisions will be crucial for legal professionals, especially those working with administrative agencies. With the possible destabilization of a four-decade-long precedent, they could witness a landmark shift in administrative law’s fabric and may need to adjust their legal strategies accordingly.