The Supreme Court’s Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling has constituted a legal pillar for almost four decades, guiding courts to defer to a government agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. However, recent oral argumentation over three and a half hours suggests an altered trajectory, making the survival of the rule, known as the ‘Chevron doctrine’, seem unlikely.
Based on presentations and discussion, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices appear ready to either significantly limit or even eliminate the doctrine. The potentially altered stance of the court could disturb many rote operations across the federal landscape, where agencies frequently draw upon specialized experts to interpret and implement federal laws. The doctrine, which debuted non-controversially in 1984, has drawn recent criticism from conservatives, which include some members of the Supreme Court.
The Court heard a plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine in two cases challenging a rule set by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit endorsed the rule. They found it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law using the Chevron framework, but the fishing companies appealed to the Supreme Court.
Roman Martinez, representing a group of fishing vessels, suggested that the Chevron doctrine compromises the role of courts in defining legal boundaries. According to him, the federal law governing administrative agencies also requires courts to reevaluate legal questions independently. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was one of the members who saw Chevron’s deference to agencies differently, complaining that such a rule brought about ‘shocks to the system’ whenever a new administration assumed office.
On the other hand, Justice Elena Kagan argued that federal agencies with scientific and technical expertise are better equipped than courts to resolve ambiguities in a federal statute. Furthermore, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested maintaining the Chevron doctrine because it empowers Congress to delegate policy decisions to federal agencies.
The consequences of a decision overruling Chevron are still under debate, with the Supreme Court not having referenced Chevron for several recent years. Although Martinez insisted that overturning Chevron would not question the validity of prior cases where it was applied, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar warned that thousands of rulings would become contestable.
As the Court continues to wrestle with the challenging prospect of discarding a long-standing doctrine, its future in its current form appears increasingly precarious.
This summary was based on the original article by Amy Howe, available here.