On 17th January, the United States Supreme Court engaged in a heated argument on whether to overturn one of the foundational cases that govern how government agencies interpret laws. The culmination of this debate could dramatically impact the functionality of the government going forward.
Forty years ago, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the court ruled that when a law is ambiguous, courts should yield to reasonable agency interpretations. This is a crucial ruling for a functional government, as it is highly impractical for Congress to draft law that covers all situation-specific nuances without causing extreme ambiguity.
The role of agencies centres around the interpretation and enforcement of such ambiguities, thus allowing regulations to work. Two cases currently under the microscope of the Supreme Court—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce—could prompt the justices to declare governmental actions as unreasonable.
In recent years, however, some Supreme Court Justices have expressed their desire to overturn the Chevron. Justices such as Neil Gorsuch have stated that the Chevron is in stark contrast to the judiciary’s duty to provide independent judgment regarding the law’s meaning. Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas changed his stance, suggesting that the Chevron is in considerable tension with the Constitution.
On the contrary, liberal justices highlighted the nuances that government agencies regulate, such as delivery of cholesterol drugs, which courts wouldn’t have the expertise to handle. Moreover, they warned of a possible flood of up to 17,000 lower court rulings put up for re-argumentation, and are in favor of maintaining the Chevron deference.
Supporters of Chevron deference argue that the modern administrative state heavily relies on agency interpretation, its opponents on the other hand see the abolition of the Chevron as a means of stalling regulation. Federal appeals courts are generally favorable towards the Chevron deference, however, in contrast, the Supreme Court finds room for ambiguity in only about 10% of cases.
If the Chevron deference was abolished, it would play into the hands of other doctrines that the Supreme Court has developed in recent years aimed at limiting government functionality. Looking at the apparent conservative swing on the Supreme Court, and their pursuit of deregulation, the future of Chevron remains unclear.
These cases are set to be argued in the following weeks: ‘Relentless v. Department of Commerce, U.S. No. 22-1219‘, and ‘Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, U.S., No. 22-451‘.
This unfolding reality manifests a clash between the government and judiciary and could shape the future of judicial decisions. The importance and influence of Chevron, and hence the outcome of this debate, can not be understated.