The fate of the 40-year-old doctrine that courts should defer to federal regulators, more commonly known as the Chevron doctrine, was put into question in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. A conservative-led campaign against the practice has apparently run into headwinds as predictions of a ‘litigation tsunami’ ensued and justices voiced concerns about a surge in lawsuits and potential politicization of the federal judiciary.
The discussion encompassed worries about legal chaos and the implications for decades of past rulings if the Chevron doctrine were to be overturned. Some of the justices indicated unease about the effect of removing a precedent that shapes the actions of agencies across the federal government.
The Chevron doctrine, so named for the 1984 Supreme Court case ‘Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.’, generally calls for courts to defer to regulatory agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. This move could lead to an increased number of legal challenges, creating ‘a litigation tsunami’, as well as raising fears about the politicization of the judiciary.
You may read more about the Supreme Court proceedings and the Chevron case on Law360.